Replies

However, is it wrong to ban something that is potentially harmful to society?

Well, then, let's allow everyone to ban what THEY consider to be harmful to society. So we'll ban drugs, rap music, freon, saccharine, alcohol, tobacco, SUVs, junk food, pesticides, cars in general, houses that are too big, meat, logging, Western civilization, agriculture, and the human race as we know it, because all are considered to be harmful by SOMEONE, and then we can all rest assured that no harm is being done to society, because it won't exist any more.

Banning rap is a non-starter. Conditions in the community that buys and supports rap music create the market. Banning rap music won't fix those core problems, in fact it would likely create one wicked riot.

Cart before the horse, rap doesn't CAUSE the problem, it's just a symptom of something much deeper.

Interesting points. However, I was not saying that everything someone considers harmful ought to be banned. I would not even say that it should be a matter of what the "majority" of people believe to be harmful, as we know that simply because a majority of people believe something to be true does not make it so. However, one can certainly evaluate things based on their merits. What benefit comes from what is being considered? What harm does it cause? Does it create the problems it is related to or is it merely a symptom of larger problems? If a particular thing is indeed the cause of troubles and produces little benefit, is society acting outside of its boundaries to regulate or ban it? We elect representatives to debate and discuss issues for the very purpose of considering such matters and to pass laws in accordance with their decisions (that the system has been reduced to simple pandering for votes is a sad, sad thing).

I suppose my main contention is with this notion that society has no right to ban certain activities and that all such bans are really just matters of "preference" on the part of a few.