Banning

[Kromovaracun]

Hello all

I'm starting a question about a particular bugbear of mine, I hope it might interest some of you guys too.

I notice in the News section there have been a cluster of stories lately relating to efforts (successful, pending or otherwise) to ban various things (boxing, mini-skirts, burkhas etc.)

I'd just like to throw out an open question: why is the idea of banning something accepted so lightly? It's not just in these posts, I've noticed it in other topics that are relevant. When debating solutions to various problems, I quite often notice 'Ban x and follow up with y' thrown out as a suggestion.

My question stems from the fact that I really dislike the idea that the state should prevent people from doing something that it doesn't need to prevent them from doing. If I'm being completely honest, I guess it also stems from the fact that I think morality (which most proposed bans seem to be based on) is a relatively low priority for the state. As we all know, just covering the necessities of what the state does takes immense resources (financial, material and human). A lot of the bans that you hear discussed seem frankly like moral niceties (and without wishing to open that particular can of worms, I've made it clear numerous times I consider the hunting ban on this level.)

The British seem to constantly be complaining about the government or how it does its job, but do sometimes seem easily convinced on the idea of banning whatever (usually for moral reasons), when a ban is a significant logistical commitment.

What are ABers thoughts on this? Do you think there's much truth in it? If so, do you think it might apply to you or the people around you? If so, why do you think that is?

[jno]

'without the need for insults...'

"we all know that the 'Left' is the biggest oppressor of freedom of actions and speech"

[anotheoldgit]

/// Why are the British (or perhaps just people generally) so easy to persuade to ban something?///

First, much better to say 'we' instead of British, we then know that the question has been asked by a fellow countryman.

Answer to the question : We are easily persuaded to ban something if that something is a popular request. Obviously if it was not popular it stands to reason, we would not be easy to persuade.

/// Why is a ban so often accepted so lightly as a means to an end (usually a moral one)?////

Once again it is dependant on what is being banned. Regarding a 'moral one' we each have a different slant on morals, so I think once again it is best to stick to the majority.

/// Do ABers think there's much truth in my observations or do they think I'm talking nonsense? ///

Not quite sure what your observations are, but I would not tell anyone they are talking nonsense, if those are your observations then fair enough, but others have the right to disagree without the need for unnecessary insults etc.

[jno]

"I would not tell anyone they are talking nonsense"

Ha!

(Don't worry, aog, I am not going to stalk your past posts to suggest your memory may be a little faulty, others can do it if they choose.)

[Kromovaracun]

"First, much better to say 'we' instead of British, we then know that the question has been asked by a fellow countryman."

Would it matter if it wasn't? This seems largely semantic.

"We are easily persuaded to ban something if that something is a popular request. Obviously if it was not popular it stands to reason, we would not be easy to persuade."

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's true. People don't usually seem to endorse bans based on whether they're popular or not - they usually see them as a means to some end.

For instance, "We should ban smoking in pubs to protect ourselves from second-hand smoke"

or

"We should ban fox hunting because it's cruel."

I don't think you hear many people saying "We should ban x or y because it'll be popular" - purely because I think a lot of people accept the majority isn't always right, and unless there's been extensive polling, it can be hard to know if you're in the majority or not.

"Not quite sure what your observations are"

They're covered in more detail in the OP, but the heart of it is this: I think people have a very cavalier attitude toward banning things, my evidence (admittedly skimpy) being how often I hear people endorsing it as a solution to one problem or another (you see it on here a lot as well but you're likely to hear it if politics comes up in r/l too). Further, I think it's inconsistent with the expectations people have of the government.

[Kromovaracun]

" would not tell anyone they are talking nonsense, if those are your observations then fair enough, but others have the right to disagree without the need for unnecessary insults etc. "

Well, yeah... but I think the world's a bit of a boring place if people just state their opinion and draw a line in the sand - I think arguing is a healthy and fun way of testing out my ideas. There are some smart people on AB I thought might be interested in the subject as well, so thought I'd put it out there.

[Oneeyedvic]

<<<What I said was the fact that I have been called upon to be banned.

My point was that I had been called upon to be banned, and the fact that some had also asked for me not to be banned did not arise. >>>

Actually, no you didn't.

You said: <<<I am certain that each and everyone of us have wished at sometime or other for something to be banned. Given the chance I am sure that the 'Left' would like the 'Right' to be banned.

I know this for certain because of all the times I have been called upon to be 'BANNED'. >>>

So you have stated that the LEFT want the RIGHT banned and have experience of this. I have simply pointed out that the majority of (who you term) the left did not actually want you banned.

Still, I suppose I should expect nothing less - your intimation is that since one or two LEFT wingers called on for you to be banned, the majority must.

As I said, why let the truth get in the way of your prejudice?

[naomi24]

Hi Krom, maybe the reason it's taken lightly is because we've become so accustomed to conceding to politically correct attitudes. It appears to be an offence to offer any view that could potentially offend anyone now - so no matter what's said there's always a very good chance that it's going to offend someone. I dislike the 'nanny state' and the political correctness it has produced intensely. Conceding to popular opinion for no legitimate reason is irrational. Likewise, suppressing a problem is no way to cure it because whilst it's possible to legislate against people voicing their opinions, we can never stop them thinking and therefore the fundamental problem remains.

I'm not an avid 'ban-ner' - for example I wouldn't have advocated the banning of smoking in pubs - there were better ways around the problem - and yes, I do think the call for bans is made all to easily these days, but I've been involved in a couple of the threads you're talking about, the subjects of which are, in my opinion, genuinely worthy of a ban.