Considering that Wild Turkey is cheaper than most single-malts, I’m quite OK with that. I’ve been going with Jim Beam for my bourbon (although Wild Turkey for rye), but if you think the WT is better perhaps I’ll snag a bottle next liquor run.
Wow, Tris. I had no idea you’d posted. I tell you honestly, I never really had any illusions of convincing anybody of anything. Everytime there’s a Phil, I am flabbergasted. I’m just speaking my mind is all. In GD, I think I debate more for the benefit of lurkers than anything really.
If you don’t mind my picking a small nit, I don’t think it’s the case that my arguments are “aimed” at a small minority. My arguments are very general in scope, although very specific in principle. In other words, I really don’t care about reaching the violent emotionalist atheist. I don’t mean this the way it will no doubt fall on many ears, but why should I? What could I possibly say of any interest to a violent emotionalist atheist other than g’day?
Those who know what I’m talking about hear my voice, and they are the ones I am reaching out to. Yes, I know that’s the choir. But they don’t. Not until they hear me. And then they do.
Before I say much more let me state that I am a libertarian. I would not want to bring that up later and have others think I am hiding something now.
RT, you bring up a great example, the sex before marriage thing. You would respond without bringing up your religious beliefs, because you realize that everyone might not share those beliefs so that viewpoint may not be relevant to them. This points out a difference between approaching the world with a libertarian philosophy v. a Christian belief system: The essense of libertarianism is that everyone might not share your belief system.
As a libertarian, I would say in response to the sex before marriage question: if they are consenting adults it is none of my business. If they want personal advice on whether I think sex before marriage is a good idea I can offer that too. But as far as whether they should be allowed to fornicate, masturbate, vegetate, love or hate, that is not my business.
Someone who approaches every situation from a strict Christian viewpoint might be of the opinion that sex before marriage is wrong, should not be permitted, and may even feel it is his duty to warn others not to participate in sinful activity. Therein lies the difference, libertarianism means you stay out of other peoples’ private lives, unless their actions harm others.
So ask Lib if sex before marriage is wrong and I think he would say it is not his place to judge, as long as they are consenting adults. Ask me and that is how I would respond. Ask me or Lib if we personally would recommend sex before marriage and we may be inclined to give you our personal opinions. But you see how a relatively open question suggests to us the first response, which is grounded in libertarian philosophy.
Dammit, rambling again.
I think I understand what you’re saying, RT. I’m blessed, really, to be a LOC, and derive truth from all three. I guess actually, if I were enterprising enough, I could, based on my triune philosophy, come up with just about any way to enter the sex before marriage discussion.
On the one hand, I could say, “Why not let consenting adults who conduct their affairs peacefully and honestly decide for themselves whether to have sex before marriage?” (Libertarian)
But if God were allowed in the discussion, I could also say, “I do not choose premarital sex for myself, nor do I condemn those who have sex before marriage.” (Christian)
But also, if politics and faith are both verboten, I could say, “I’m usually best off when I mind my own business. I have enough problems of my own without having to deal with their moral dilemmas for them.” (Objectivist)
Cool, huh? 
Anybody else get a vision of a Jehovah’s Witness when they read that? 
This has pretty much been beat to death, and Lib’s consesus seems to be “I’ll try, but I can’t change.” Sigh. Oh well. I honestly meant my remarks as advice (if I’d have had your email before now, Lib, I’d have kept things private).
If you can bear one more analogy, Lib–you know I lack belief in God. This is a fundamental difference in the way I see the world, just as your views are fundamentally different from typical liberals/conservatives/centrists. Now, if you wished to discuss a theological point, and I showed up in your thread saying that it was all stupid anyway since God didn’t exist, and of course all the theists took exception and went after me, thereby getting your thread off track—how would you feel? How would the theists feel who really wanted to discuss your point, who now have to defend the very existence of God Himself? I don’t do stuff like that because I respect the discussion; I respect the assumptions made in the OP even though I think the assumptions are wrong.
GL said:
Well, we got to see Valerie’s tatoo (and the waitress gave a wonderful look when she saw it). So it appears that you’re the only one who didn’t share. How selfish!
RTF: I just don’t see how metal sticking through that part of the body looks sexy. Don’t get me wrong – Gaudere has a cute belly button and all, but I think it would look nicer without the ring. To each his own, I guess.
(Hope I didn’t embarrass Gaudere talking about her belly button, but Lib always talks about her heart being so wonderful, so I figure she doesn’t mind discussions of her body parts. )
Gosh, Joe! No wonder you read me so well!
(I guess you noticed I interpret Christianity a bit differently. Jesus, as it happens, is the consumate libertarian, never intitiating force, but using all necessary defensive force to evict vandals and trespassers from His house.)
Damnit! I’m doing everything in my power, Gaudere, to hijack this friggin’ thing, but to no avail.
And while you may think me cheap date enough to cave to a single bottle, I am, and have been, a professional drinker for far too long to be swayed by such as that. “Great bloody lot” means “Great bloody lot”.
Man, she’s gonna be really pissed to find out that I’m not pierced, but what the hell, I’m gonna get bourbon out of the deal.
Oh. Sorry. Was that out loud?
Waste
Flick Lives!
You may not be pierced at the beginning of the night, but after a couple bottles of Kentucky’s best, that can change…
(You can drink more than one bottle or bourbon?! Holy hell. I’m way outta my league)
Fortunately for me, the vast majority of single young men do not agree.
Gaudere
[uote]Now, if you wished to discuss a theological point, and I showed up in your thread saying that it was all stupid anyway since God didn’t exist, and of course all the theists took exception and went after me, thereby getting your thread off track—how would you feel?
[/quote]
I guess I would feel like you were Sake Samurai, and not Gaudere.
David B.
I see your wink, but just to be sure you understand:
“Heart — 6b: the essential or most vital part of something.” Merriam-Webster
So a person who acts like that is acting like Sake, hm? So if you act like that…
Gaudere said:
What can I say? I’ve never been one to go with the crowd. I prefer the “natural” look to the metallic one. 
That said, I do believe that peaceful, honest people should be able to stick metal rings in their belly buttons without government interference.
Lib: Thanks for clarifying. For a minute, I thought you had MRI scans of Gaudere’s heart, and were commenting on the shape, muscle mass, and its ability to pump blood. I had no idea you were being metaphorical. None at all.
But I believe that peaceful, honest people should be able to be metaphorical (and sarcastic) without government interference.
Just to let you know, Gaudere, I believe Lib was being metaphorical. He would not believe you were actually genetically identical to Sake in the case he described.
Just wanted to clarify, as peaceful, honest people should be allowed to do without government interference.
Not commenting on the primary subject of this thread, but has anyone noticed the irony of this thread going off-topic to discuss Gaudere’s navel piercing.
Gaudere
So you mean, like, when I say that the best way to deal with problems in public schools is to eliminate them, and then get into an explanation of why the whole notion of rights is obfuscated by so-called “public property”?
Hmmm…
Maybe when I’m moved to interpret an otherwise mundane issue libertarianly, rather than respond in the mundane debate thread, I could start a new thread for the greater debate. Would that work?
Actually, Gaudere, piercings probably wouldn’t be out of the question. I didn’t get a chance to tell you about the time I got stranded in Portland OR, and wanted to take a cab to Walla-Walla WA.
And David, the problem is not with those peaceful, honest people wanting to stick metal rings in their navels, but with those who are neither peaceful, nor honest, wanting to stick things in others navels. Particularly the navels of sixth graders. Who choose to be metaphorical. And/or sarcastic.
Waste
Flick Lives!
Wasteful
I am in the presence of greatness.
Well, as a navel-pierced atheist, I naturally see everything through the lens of navel-piercing, and I feel compelled to bring it up. Why are you calling it a hijack for me to express my opinion!?
How much bourbon will it take for that story?
Yes.
About damned time we got this thing pointed in another direction, by cracky.
Gaudere, it would probably require almost as much bourbon as I drank that night to get me to tell that story. That’s why talking to a banker about a loan will very probably be required.
Then, I’ve got several stories about alcohol and me. Some of which take place in such far away lands as Canada & Mexico. So you might wanna think on doubling your purchase.
Waste
Flick Lives!
Actually, I was planning to tape your first story, then threaten to post the transcript unless further stories were forthcoming…
Do the Canadian and Mexican stories require different alcohol, i.e., Canadian Club and tequila? These things must be done properly, you know; aquiring blackmail material is a delicate operation.