Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,253
edits
Changes
Talk:Liberal indoctrination (view source)
Revision as of 15:13, August 11, 2009
, 15:13, August 11, 2009→Dungeons and Dragons
:::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)
:::::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? --[[User:Benp|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. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)