Might as well stop procrastinating and get started on this.
As for "harmless card games," are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were "rare and powerful." --Benp 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
How is that the fault of the card game?
Since when do they play Magic:TG in Vegas?
What does Vegas have to do with anything?
-TheHeroExcelsior
:You mentioned poker and blackjack as other "harmless" card games. I was pointing out exactly what kind of morality is exhibited by a town DEDICATED to such "harmless" games. It seems entirely relevant to me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:25, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
It's not the card games that cause the depravity. It's the gambling, drugs, booze, and prostitution that do. Stop blaming the games for the actions of the players. They do not play Magic:TG in Vegas. There is no connection. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:47, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:Wait...it's not the card games, it's the gambling? The card games '''are''' the gambling! I'm sorry, but your arguments seem a little confused. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
I learned to play poker from my grandmother, is she evil too? The player bet on the hands. You don't have to gamble to play cards. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:02, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
"unless you can offer some substantiative justification for removal of this material beyond the fact that you personally play and like the game (and are thus biased,) I stand by my position that it should remain. --Benp 10:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
My counter is this: The article is about Liberal indoctrination, not "things that might cause liberal thinking in select instances." So stick to things that are certain to cause liberal thinking, and please remove conjecture. "Maybe" is not good enough. Where's the stuff on historic revisionism, censoring the pledge, forced sex ed, outlawing prayer? These are the things that indoctrinate children into the liberal mindset. And you want to blame a pen and paper game? [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
:I take wine at Communion. Is my priest evil for giving it to me? No? And yet you were willing to claim that alcohol causes depravity. Of course, the exact same arguments apply to alcohol as to this game: many people enjoy it responsibly without behaving immorally as a result. Nobody forces people to drink.
:Yet, you're willing to point the finger at alcohol and not at these games (which you personally play and enjoy.) I see a bit of a double standard there.
:I prefer a balanced approach. I would not claim that alcohol causes depravity, but I WOULD acknowledge that it has the potential to be harmful, and I would NOT seek to remove that information from an article. Likewise, I have not claimed that D&D is some universal cause of evil and immoral behavior, but I DO acknowledge that it has the potential to be harmful. Note that I didn't put the material in this article in the first place; I'm simply objecting to your removing it with no justification.
:Where IS the stuff about historic revisionism, censoring the pledge, forced sex ed, and outlawing prayer? That's an excellent question. Why not try to contribute to the article by adding these things, rather than deleting material? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:19, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
The Blood of Christ is not alcohol, but I accept your comparison. I agree that some children may not see the difference between game and reality, but I have never met anyone under 14 who played. That is why I concede that my experience cannot be the Final Word on that. Maybe some little kids have played it and gone awry. I will conclude that D&D is only a positive or negative force if used as such. Players have free will in the game, people have free will out here. Our choices dictate our path. I am just worried that we will have to stamp a warning label on everything that might cause liberal thinking. This is my first day as a member of Conservapedia, and it was interesting. Benp, thank you for being a good adversary. You've honed my debate edge. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:59, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
==Wow==
You guys do realize you are on your user page, right? :-) --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 15:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
== Extra privileges ==
Thanks for your high-quality edits for over a year. I've just granted you extra privileges of night editing and blocking, which were overdue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 20 December 2009 (EST)
:Wow...thank you! I'm honored at the trust, and I'll do my best to live up to it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:46, 20 December 2009 (EST)
== Thanks, I've got the rest ==
Thanks, Benp. I've got the rest. And watch the Recent Changes for something neat.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:35, 21 December 2009 (EST)
:Will do! Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:36, 21 December 2009 (EST)
:You're right--that IS pretty neat. Looks much nicer now! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:43, 21 December 2009 (EST)
::Yeah, it's cool. By the way, I've really enjoyed and learned from your extremely insightful edits here. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and teaching others here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:47, 21 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thank you for giving me the opportunity! A merry somewhat-early Christmas to you and yours, since I likely won't be on between now and then. :) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 21 December 2009 (EST)
::::Merry Christmas to you too, Ben! We'll sorely miss any absences by you, but we'll be constantly improving as best we can. Enjoy this special time of the year.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 21 December 2009 (EST)
== Great New Year's Resolution ==
Two Founders a day ... what a great resolution!!! Happy New Year's to you! Godspeed for a good year.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:17, 1 January 2010 (EST)
:Don't slack off - I didn't see any red links turn blue on New Year's Eve. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:50, 2 January 2010 (EST)
::Duly kicked. :) That's two for today--thanks for keeping me on the ball! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 2 January 2010 (EST)
== Welcome back! ==
Welcome back, Ben! We missed you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 10 January 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, Andy! Good to be back. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:56, 10 January 2010 (EST)
== Superb addition ==
Thanks for your superb addition to [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 25 February 2010 (EST)
== Your new essay ==
Just read your essay on liberalism and intelligence. It is a brilliant dissection of the average liberal psyche, well done! [[User:Myrobi|Myrobi]] 17:10, 1 March 2010 (EST)
== Founding Fathers ==
<big>Congratulations....job well-done, Ben!</big> --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:01, 17 June 2010 (EDT)
== Superb block ==
Superb block and reverts, Ben!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
== Ben ==
Thank you for your kind words concerning reverting those egregious remarks. I greatly appreciate it.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 12:03, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
== Taking It Elsewhere ==
I still don't understand your distaste for the "long time listener, first time caller". In what way is it different from a non-vote being spurred to vote because of issues that he either wants to support or oppose? The truth is, the sysops set the tone for the site and many new users model their actions after the sysops; this is not always the most productive path. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:20, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:The truth is also that this website gets a very large number of "first time callers" who are parodists and more interested in stirring the pot than in seeing any sort of meaningful resolution. The fact that these "first time callers" tend to show up in waves when there's already discord certainly does nothing to dispel the perception that many of them are here to fan the flames. Now, I'm trying to be nice here and give you and the other "new posters" the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to start blocking people just because I can. On the other hand, contrary to some perceptions, we're neither blind nor stupid. It's almost impossible to work at this site for any length of time and NOT be aware that there's a website dedicated to gossiping about Conservapedia, and that this dispute is currently the sole topic of gossip there.
:Suffice to say that I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but my doubts are significant. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:29, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm aware of the other site but am not a member. I'm just an interested observer (and now member) who has an opinion. Is that permissible? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:32, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Certainly. You're entitled to your opinion, and you've voiced it. You weren't blocked for that; your opinion wasn't deleted. Now I'm asking you to leave it at that. Common courtesy prohibits the use another user's talk page as a public forum for discussion, regardless of who the user may be. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:38, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
As a much longer-term editor than me, would you ''please'' move the conversation on Andy's talk page to the community portal? It's gone beyond crazy there. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:36, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Sharon,
:I agree entirely, but I'm not sure it's my place to do so. I've been here for a while, yes, but other than having block rights, I have no more authority than any other user. If it was just new users, I'd be a little less hesitant, but I really don't want to start moving Sysop messages, and they're mixed into the rest of the discussion very thoroughly. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
== [[User:Ripu]] ==
Quick thought on this user's blocking. It seems that they made edits to the internet slang article that you took offense to. I'm not entirely sure that this was parody and should have resulted in a block. Their edits seem in line with other examples on the page and could have been confusing. Also, the l33t terms and 9001 are internet slang in certain circles. Just my two-cents. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:It's not so much the terms, it's the state-the-glaringly obvious nature of them. ("1" as slang for "one?" "l337" as slang for one thousand, three hundred, thirty-seven?") I didn't make it a particularly long block, but I really feel like he was tweaking our collective noses. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
== Granted SkipCatcha ==
Ben, I just gave you SkipCatcha privileges -- which I should have given you a long time ago. Please accept my apologies for just realizing this now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:34, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:No apology needed, Andy. To be honest, it never occurred to me to ask! Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
==Silliness==
Thanks, Ben. I expect a number of similar graffiti marks in upcoming days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:09, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, I think you may be right. No thanks necessary, Ed; glad to help out. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:16, 2 September 2012 (EDT)