Political Correctness is counterproductive

Those are very good examples. Four links that portray the exact same article, but in different words. -Affirmative action has set all kinds of precedents for discriminatory practices. http://plato.stanford.edu...... One of the examples from the article is that of a University. `It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. That’s the negative side of AA. But: Perhaps the reason for his grades being higher is that those of ethnic minorities did not get an opportunity to get a good education in a first place. You cannot deny them of education for decades and then expect them to be equally intelligent as some of the candidates. Does that make sense? Or am I wrong? -Political correctness has placed many restrictions on language, expression and education, which is harmful to an allegedly free society: http://pirep.org...... http://news.cnet.com...... I ask my opponent to stop posting slightly unrelated articles. I understand it is easy to confuse PC with other issues but please, read the articles with more care before you post them. First link – It is a company policy not to allow jewelry, regardless of it being a Cross. The employee believes it is religious discrimination. Ask yourself a question, if political correctness would not exist, would she be able to sue? Of course she would. Then we will have to abandon the religious discrimination act, then gender discrimination act, etc, etc. Second link - Americans with Disabilities Act. Again, imagine there was no such thing as political correctness. Would universities still be able to agree on not using the Kindle? Of course they would. First because of the Disabilities act, second because it is their University and they can do whatever they want to do. Also if you read the articles, rather than just pasting them you might notice that what they are trying to achieve is to make Kindle more disability friendly. What problem do you have with that? There are many Laws and Acts under which we could sue people. Yet you blame all of the court cases on PC. Does that mean you suggest we cancel discrimination acts, human and civil right act and so on and so forth? "I don't need to be black to understand the point here". Yes you do. That was a very bigoted statement. It is not about a point the book is trying to make but how it makes one feel. Obviously not good. http://www.blackvoicenews.com...... Good article from Blackvoice. Good Point made about Huck Finn - ‘Can you still make the point of this brilliant novel without using this word( N word) 219 times?’ I think that you can,” Watkins told CNN. “The question for me also is whether or not it makes sense to force kids in school to hear this word over and over again to make that point. When I was in high school, I wouldn't have wanted to read that book. I think [NewSouth Publishing] made the right move (by changing the word).” Which leads me to a question still unanswered by my opponent for two rounds now – how does a book being reprinted with a single word change in it suddenly puts our intellectual well being at risk?? Please answer. Also please do not state that the whole meaning of th book revolved around the N word. That would be silly. "If you believe I cannot have a valid opinion because I'm not black, you mustn't have one either". I don’t. My aim is to prove you that your opinion is wrong rather than impose my opinion on you. Remember that you are the one who invited me for a debate, not the other way around. You have NO RIGHT (within this debate. In real world do whatever you please). Otherwise you are a bigot. "If we are *truly* treating everyone equally, there is no need to tiptoe around everyone's feelings. If people were always hired (just as one example) based on their skills, rather than on their race or religion or gender, we would all be on an equal playing field, thereby removing a lot of the literal power behind offensive language". Coming back to my point that treating one other equally (and not looking at their gender, religion etc) is what PC is about. Why have you written this again I do not understand. "I'm not sure where you get that idea. I did indeed go back and read it again. First of all, the name of the list is Top 10 Censored Books".... Censored for being Socially Incorrect (promoting violence and being too sexually explicit). Don’t confuse PC with Social Correctness (they do not offend, they are simply inappropriate). As I previously mentioned I doubt you understand what PC is. That makes it hard to debate with you. Those books that were banned are the ones that had the F and N words used in them. Good they were banned. It seems you are fighting for the N word to be used in books a lot. I wonder why that is. "I hope the link I have provided would help you understand what I mean by "lack of knowledge"" It seems you are lacking knowledge just as bad as the rest of them. "I do agree that communication is vital, but I think the most important factor in reducing bigotry is education. Political correctness is damaging to education, for reasons I have already gone over". You did not. A word has been changed in a book is not damaging to our education. Kindle not being used in schools is not damaging to our education. Even if one book is banned and substituted by the other, still not damaging to our education. So again, what exactly do you mean by damaging to our education? Provide me with prove that vever since the PC came about, IQ in Canada for instance went down. If you do not have that prove then your statment does not worth much. "Why is it ridiculous? I explained my argument"…… Your argument is that of a 7 year old - “I'm saying that the only way to achieve true equality is to *actually* treat people equally”. And I want peace in the Middle East. The only way to cure AIDS is to *actually* do something about it. Really? Thats your argument? "We have taken to rewriting history and censoring literature in an effort not to offend"….. If one billion books would have been banned on the racial bases and you would have said that if we let people read them, that would have changed the world and racism, then perhaps I would believe you. Only a handful of books have been banned and I doubt that if we let children read those as they were written then Mark Twain would put an end to racism. Your argument is as naïve as they come. I shall post my final opinion on PC in the final round. I would like to apologise for the outlay in previous round. i am new to this site and still familiarising myself with the font and all.