Changes

:::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?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:46, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

:::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?  --[[User:Benp|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. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:00, 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. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:00, 11 August 2009 (EDT)