It is stupid to compare politicla correctness to the rules of a religion

The direct comparison of PC to religion is made in an academic studyUsing the agreed-upon definition of "stupid" the resolution becomes:Comparing political correctness to the rules of religion shows a lack of ability to learn and understand things. Early in the debate I quoted Geoffrey Hughes, a professor of English Language History. The Professor authored a book-length academic study entitled Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture ," in which he made the direct comparison:Puritanism . .. has considerable and enduring relevance to political correctness, since it encapsulates strictness in morality with a Pharisaic attitude of being “holier than thou,” combined with an unhealthy curiosity, even an inquisitiveness or inquisitorial attitude concerning the “lapses” and “nonconformity” of others. Not for nothing has political correctness been stigmatized as the New Puritanism. [8]The was published in 2009 by Wiley-Blackwell, a major academic book publisher, in their Language Lbrary series. So Pro is claiming that the professor, among others, is stupid. It's not plausible that the duly-credentialed Professor who studied the subject is unable to learn and understand. It's possible that the professor is wrong on some points because he analyzed or interpreted incorrectly, but it's not plausibe he is wrong because he lacks the intellectual capacity for learning. He presents his analysis coherently in the context of carefully-researched history. Pro presented no contrary expert opinion. I think nothing more is required to conclude that Pro has lost his argument in this debate. PC goes way beyond Pro's claim of it being a minor suggestionPro argues that political correctness goes no further than disapproving of racist and sexist language. He bases his whole case on two dictionary definitions that he timmed to suit his purposes. My two dictionary definitions invoked orthodoxy and behavior as part of political correctness. Looking up Pro's defintions, we find that material he excluded make them much closer to mine. Pro argued that words do not have meanings beyond their dictionary definitions. I gave the extreme counterexample of the word "golf" upon which the dictionary goes no further than it being an outdoor sport played with clubs. I cited a popular book that compares golf fanatics as being comparable to religion. Less extreme, definitions of "Puritan" say they were about simplifying worship and eliminating remnats of Catholicism in Protestant worship. That come no where near even a modest understanding of what the Puritans were. Dictionaries are not the end of understanding a subject, they are barest beginning of understanding. I cited a half dozen books and dozen or so articles and news stories that describe political correctness. Pro used no references other than his two dictionary definitions in the entire debate. The resolution refers to the "rules of religion. " At no time did I claim that political correctness is a religion; it is not. The comparison was limited to mirroring certain aspects of religion. A key point of comparison are restrictions on language designed to reinforce behavior. A religious person avoids language deemed blastphemous and strives to conform to the behavior pattern of his orthodoxy, and he believes that a person who does so is more moral than a person who does not. A political correct person avoids gender-specific and other language and he strives to conform to the behavior pattern of his orthodoxy, and he believes that a person who does so is more moral than a person who does not. Religons demand certain behaviors, so does political correctness. A behavior example is that political correctness demands recycling, and the demand applies in even in cases that make no sense from the viewpoints of ecology or economics. No of this argues which behavirs are good or bad. I think most of us would agree that religious orthodoxy demanding honesty is good and that political correctness orthodoxy prohibiting use of racial slurs is also go. How much of an orthodoxy is not elevant to our debate. The debate is where an orthodoxy of political correctness exists. Pro made specific arguments as to why comparisons were "stupid":Pro argued the rules of PC are not written down and well organizedWe know that in fact complex religious orthodoxies were obeyed in socities that had no writing. I pointed to the complex rules of the ancient Hawaiian religion, obeyed espite there being no writing and hence no scripture. To this day, religious orthodoxies are obeyed by people who have no system writing. But the rules of PC are written down for the purpose of enforcement. There are written in requirements for state school textbooks, in the styleguide for the press, and as campus speech codes. Pro claimed that the average person is completely unaware of the rules of political correctness. I posed a short test as to which of two alternatives was politically correct. Everyone knows. Pro admitted people obey, but they can't list the rules. Sure, that's the whole idea of ingraining an orthodoxy into language, per newspeak. Pro argued that only government can bring about compliance, and PC has no government enforcementSocial pressure alone can bring about compliance. Most of religious orthodoxy is voluntary or is enforced only by social pressure, for example the manner of dress adopted by the Mennonites or the Jewish practice of returning home by sundown on Friday. In the extreme, Muslim practices of honor killing are carried out in non-Muslim countries (google the phrase "Muslim man kills daughter"). Fatwas are carried by Muslim fanatics in non-Muslim countries. Being voluntary does not made a strict orthodoxy any less of strict orthodoxy. PC, however, has specific enforcement mechanisms. States enforce the PC written rules on PC in textbooks. The military reuires sensitivity training of soldiers who fail to obey the PC rules. On campuses, restrictive PC speech codes are enforced on both students and faculty. Fear of enforcement of PC rules enabled the Ford Hood massacre. I think "enabling" is quite enough. PC rules led to the firing of the president of Harvard according to Prof. Dershowitz. Pro claimed other factors in addition to PC, but gave no evidence. Pro argued that religions only have rules about worship and deitiesI cited many counterexamples, e. g. only four of the Ten Commandments deal with worship and deities. However, there are religions like Jainism and Buddhism that have strong orthodoxies governing behavior, but no worship and no deities. it's valid to compare only the behavior and language parts of religious orthodoxy to PC. A children's poem says "the moon is like a silver penny. " The comparison is not stupid, even though major factors of mass and orbital characteristics are overlooked in the comparison. Debate IssuesS&G. Pro doesn't use apostrophes. You're become youre. How annoying is that? Sources. I gave two dozen references showing the meaning of PC and it's role in society. Pro offered only two dictionaries, from which he trimmed the definitions to suit his purposes. I cited everyone from Christopher Hitchens to Alan Dershowitz. Surely if the books an the subject were wrong, there would be sources saying so, but Pro had none. If PC did not enable the Ft. Hood shooter or was not the major factor in dismissing the President of Harvard, some reputable source could be cited. Pro relied entirely on his own authority. Conduct. I made a point in the challenge of getting Pro to "agree not to use personal attacks, insults, or obscenity. " He was dismissive, saying "Roy. .. .. <denial>. .. .. . Try again" and got to "Youre not even making any sense anymore,. ." and ". .. is this all still unsubstantiated babble that isnt worth even correcting? " Arguments. Pro has the burden to prove that a comparison between the rules of religion and politcal correctness is stupid. He did not meet that burden.