Talk:Liberal indoctrination

Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --WPalmer 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

What exactly does it mean to "ignore" the Pledge of Allegiance? HelpJazz 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --WPalmer 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. HelpJazz 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Why mommy is a democrat

While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. ClarkeD 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Dungeons and Dragons

I play D&D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. The statement that they open the path to amorality is conjecture. In D&D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. TheHeroExcelsior 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

Many people play these games; how does that in any way disprove the assertion that they are tools which teach moral relativism? You mention that the "questing knight, the valiant monk, and the wise sorceror" are good guys. What sorts of acts do these "good guys" engage in? In most games I've seen, the answer is murder and robbery--justified by "We're the good guys."

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)

Have you heard of the Paladin Class of character? They can only be played from the Lawful Good perspective. They are obligated to defend the weak. They must tithe all of their earnings. They must choose a patron saint to devote themselves to. The card games themselves are not responsible for the player's actions. Those belong to the player alone. Anyone who attacks a kid over cards is sick in the head. But he could have just as easily stolen something else. This is NOT the card's fault. TheHeroExcelsior 10:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

So...the Paladin doesn't kill people? He doesn't take their goods? Where does he get these "earnings" that he tithes? They have to choose a "patron saint" to devote themselves to? Truly? That's odd, because I could have sworn that, out of all the many religions the D&D game offers characters, the Christian religion wasn't one. Can you please provide a reference for this "patron saint" claim?

People are, of course, responsible for their own actions. However, it's glaringly obvious that that is not an excuse to say "anything goes" when it comes to exposing children to questionable influences. People have used the same defense for extremely violent video games, despite the fact that psychological research has shown a clear correlation between exposure to such games and increased aggressive behavior in young children. Naturally, fans of these games claim that they're harmless and that the correlation is "a coincidence" and "not the fault of the games."

Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil, or committing evil acts. The goods he takes are spoils of war or his own hard work. Why would Christianity exist in a fantasy world? My reference would be the D&D Players Handbook. The Paladin Alohandra has the mark of her patron branded on her arm. Your references are all to traditional religion sites. I have played it, it is not bad. Don't try to make me sound like a whiner. Call it "original research" if you will but no one that I have played it with has denied Christ, turned Satanic, or eaten puppies.

This is not a video game. There are no graphic images. It's all imaginary. Nothing in the game says, "go forth and kill your family." Furthermore, games do not cause aggression. Aggressive kids seek aggressive games. You are blaming the weapon, not the wielder.TheHeroExcelsior 10:34, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

...and the article doesn't claim that every single person who plays will do so. Nor do the sources I cited. Rather, they point out the potential for such games to teach the wrong lessons--particularly to young, impressionable children.

So Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil. Again, you can provide a reference for that? I don't recall ever seeing that rule in the books when I read them. (I'm not arguing totally from ignorance here, you see; I DO try to examine things before I object to them.) For example, you mention that the Paladin Alohandra has "the mark of her patron" branded on her arm. I also notice that you are no longer using the term "patron saint." Could this be because this Paladin's patron is NOT a saint (which you claimed was a requirement for Paladins?) Who is this "patron," exactly?

Furthermore, I note that your claim that Paladins "must be lawful good" seems to be false. According to some quick research, that used to be true, but now Paladins can be good, evil, or anything in between. They also no longer suffer any punishment for evil acts. Odd that the one example you offered of a requirement to act in a good and moral fashion has been removed from the game.

What we're dealing with here is a situation where you want to claim that your personal experience is universal, and that these games cannot possibly have ANY potential for teaching the wrong lessons to children because you yourself haven't experienced it. Therefore, you want to make the article an absolute, removing any mention of even the possibility. As it is, the article is balanced--it doesn't claim that these games are inherently liberal or evil or immoral, but it DOES acknowledge the possibility that such games can be used to instill such beliefs in children. Why would you want to censor legitimate concerns? --Benp 10:46, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

You seem like you would censor the sun for causing skin cancer. Which rulebook did you read? The one I mentioned is AD&D 3rd Edition. Her patron saint is a Lawful Good entity. Are you familiar with alignment in D&D? It determines your characters approach to life and law. LG is the highest standard a player can be held to. There are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic in respect to law. There is Good, Neutral, and Evil for morality. You combine one from each group to make an alignment. For example, the Pope would be Lawful Good, a mafia capo would be Lawful Evil, Richard Dawkins would be Neutral Evil, Peter Pan would be Chaotic Good, and Bill Ayers would be Chaotic Evil. This is a big deal for a player as it determines their moral compass. By the way, anything could corrupt someone. This article is about Liberal Indoctrination, not "things that could lead to liberal thinking in a few isolated instances." Make a distinction. My social science teacher committing Historical Revisionism to make white settlers look evil was liberal indoctrination. My principal telling me to omit "under God" from the pledge was liberal indoctrination. D&D is not. TheHeroExcelsior 11:00, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

No. What I would NOT do is say "I've been in the sun, it's never caused ME any skin cancer, therefore I'm going to remove that claim from an article!" It seems odd that you would accuse others of censorship when you are the one seeking to remove material from the article.

A "lawful good entity?" Not a saint? You seem to be shying away from the words D&D uses: "deity" and "god." The character worships a god--perhaps fictional, perhaps pagan, but not the God of the Bible. Am I right? If so, why did you initially claim that Paladins dedicated themselves to "saints?" And why did you so carefully tiptoe around acknowledging the truth?

As I noted above, you're citing an outdated rulebook. My research indicates that, according to the current rules, Paladins can be as evil as they want. Is that true? If so, again, why are you citing out-of-date rules to defend the game?

I have to be very honest: I'm becoming more and more skeptical of your claims of conservatism. Your principal told you to omit "under God" from the Pledge? Really? I suspect that if a principal had done something so blatantly illegal, not only would that principal have been fired in short order, it would have been huge news--even the MSM wouldn't be able to cover up something like that. Yet, I don't recall hearing anything about such a case. Why is that? --Benp 11:13, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

As for video games not causing aggression in children, I suggest you take that up with Mr. Schlafly; he has done extensive research on the subject, and can set you straight on the matter. In any case, 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)

If it is true that Paladins can now be as evil as they want, I withdraw my objection. Let your contribution stand. Patron Saint was how they put it in 3rd Edition. It used to be a requirement for Paladins. My data is out-dated. I concede defeat. My principal was a liberal who everyone agreed with. Keep in mind that in elementary school, kids really don't speak against authority figures. He said it was so that no one would get offended, everyone bought it. It would have been huge news, if someone had spoken up, but this is Chicago. No one opposes the teacher's union here. YHWY does not appear in D&D because it's a fantasy game. Please get over that. You have just destroyed a part of my childhood. You get that much. But never accuse me of being a liberal. I'm a red island in a blue state. Take your skeptism to Wikipedia. TheHeroExcelsior 11:24, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I think you're being just a bit melodramatic. The analogy I offered on my userpage is, I think, apt: D&D is like alcohol. Most mature adults are capable of partaking in moderation. However, it can be harmful to certain individuals prone to addiction. Likewise, young children lack the maturity to easily differentiate between what the game teaches and what is appropriate and moral in the real world. Letting children play a game where the central idea is "Take stuff from others by force" could very well make them more receptive to liberal ideas.

You brought up some very valid areas that should be in the article; why not contribute by expanding and making it better and more comprehensive? --Benp 11:31, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

It's not melodrama. It's passion. Liberals don't have the guts to take things by force. They would sue you in court. They need other people to enforce their will. TheHeroExcelsior 11:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

This argument is now running far afield. I would hope Hero isn't advocating disregard for the law, and a return to the "Wild West" days, where I can assure you very few living now would be. ;-) I like Ben's apt analogy to alcohol. Just read this page, one can see signs of passion or attachment to alternatives to reality, which is what the "game" or lifestyle of D&D is. Some escape from reality is good, actually needed, at times. Regular repetitive escape using "games", RPG, is a clinical problem, same as alcohol/drugs used for the same purpose. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:46, 11 August 2009 (EDT)