NationStates Jolt Archive

i think this is the first truly good proposal i have seen. banning rap music. even though i havent been here too long i still think all u delegates should get votin on it. it looks promising.

i think this is the first truly good proposal i have seen. banning rap music. even though i havent been here too long i still think all u delegates should get votin on it. it looks promising.

Personal tastes in music are just that personal, not international, or even national issues.

:roll:

they are national if enough ppl feel the same way

yes rap is definatly a detriment to society- i meant what happened to playing real instruments or actually singing? i know my citizens are fed up in the recent wave of rap blaring upon our streets, and the Feifdom of Rooniues will not stand by while this happens to other nations! Vote on page 21 of proposals today "Rap- the Silent Killer"

they are national if enough ppl feel the same way

Then by such a proposal you ask the NSUN to sanction democracy and/or representitive democracy/monarchy, as only in such systems do citizens 'feelings' dictate policy, therefore such a proposal would violate the sovereignty of nations thus the Conferacy of Alphared could never support it.

then dont support it. this proposal was meant for those who actually care about what happens. and obviously u dont care. and thats fine. but for those who do please endorse this and have ur voice heard. keep this rap "music" out of our streets and work places and get real music where it actually takes talent to succeed in be brought back to the mainstream. ENDORSE thank you

The Conferacy of Alphared is mistaken, for rap is evil, like the next .... its liek the hunter who shot bambi's mom. do u want your children or thier children to listen to that? imagine ur whole nation influenced by this? it makes me sick.

Why jsut the other day a small baby was being pushed in a stroller in my very own Fiefdom of Rooneius and an automobile drove by playing rap. Needless to say the baby nearly died, and I was forever changed.

That from the text of your proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Rap-%20the%20Silent%20Killer). Right.

they are national if enough ppl feel the same way

Limitation of government -- otherwise known as the recognition and protection of certain basic human rights -- is an international issue. Freedom of peaceful speech and expression is one of those rights which has been internationally recognized in all NSUN member nations.

this proposal was meant for those who actually care about what happens. and obviously u dont care. and thats fine. but for those who do please endorse this and have ur voice heard. keep this rap "music" out of our streets and work places and get real music where it actually takes talent to succeed in be brought back to the mainstream.

Freedom of speech is a far more important issue than personal selection of music. If you don't like rap, that's fine -- don't listen to it, don't let your children listen to it, petition your managers to stop playing it in the workplace, but you overstep your bounds when you apply the force of government to individual selection of music. Your complaints about lack of talent are incorrect and irrelevant in a market economy where consumers determine the success or failure of a product, service, company, or individual through the sum of their freely made individual choices.

The Conferacy of Alphared is mistaken, for rap is evil, like the next .... its liek the hunter who shot bambi's mom. do u want your children or thier children to listen to that? imagine ur whole nation influenced by this? it makes me sick.

Your comparison makes very little sense on quite a few levels. First, how is rap like a deer-shooting hunter? Second, referencing one of the most famous children's movies of all time to argue in favor of banning something to protect children is, at the least, very ironic.

The Conferacy of Alphared is mistaken, for rap is evil, like the next .... its liek the hunter who shot bambi's mom. do u want your children or thier children to listen to that? imagine ur whole nation influenced by this? it makes me sick.

Rap music (which I choose not to listen to) is no more dangerous then Thrash Metal music (which I choose to both listen to and play) is no more dangerous then Big Band music (which I choose not to listen to). All these examples are irrelevant as this issue is not an international one, and barely qualifies as a national one, musical choose, is an individual Human beings choose.

As the The god Falltothzu so put it "This is not just merely an issue of censorship, in which people's freedoms are being taken away. The music of rap itself is not a problem, but the message it conveys to the audience is. We are allowing are children to her stories of men getting in cars and taking innocent lives for no other reason than their own amusement. If a child is constantly listing to messages conveying the destruction of the so called "system" by the execution of the men and women whom serve your country in the police force. These men and women put their life on the line everyday to ensure that weak are cared for, and the downtrotten are protected. Allowing children to listen to songs promoting the killing of these indviduals, in my opinion is bismal. Some say that this is just a generation of frustrated youth's way of lashing out against previous generations. This has gone far beyond lashing out against older generations, this is what is tearing down all lines of decensary that our forefathers held steadfast as they faced horrible events, which occur so often through out our history. Their ideals are what allowed them to triumph over the insermountable odds. The most direct way from one point to another is a staight line, and the best way to stop a problem is to cut it off from the source. Crime rates have risen tremendously and many would never try to walkthrough certain places at night. Although rap is not the sole reason, it is still an undeniable factor. Trying to curb the effects of rap has failed time and time again, now we have the option of dealing the final blow to this maniacle music. I urge you to support this proposition, becausing saying that you do not is the same as saying that you condone the killing of the weak, the innocent, the downtrotten, the unlucky, and worst of all the protectors of these misfortunate groups of people that can not fend for themselves. The decision is yours and yours alone. Please do the right thing: Yes on the proposal to ban rap forever."

As the The god Falltothzu so put it "This is not just merely an issue of censorship, in which people's freedoms are being taken away. The music of rap itself is not a problem, but the message it conveys to the audience is. We are allowing are children to her stories of men getting in cars and taking innocent lives for no other reason than their own amusement. If a child is constantly listing to messages conveying the destruction of the so called "system" by the execution of the men and women whom serve your country in the police force. These men and women put their life on the line everyday to ensure that weak are cared for, and the downtrotten are protected. Allowing children to listen to songs promoting the killing of these indviduals, in my opinion is bismal. Some say that this is just a generation of frustrated youth's way of lashing out against previous generations. This has gone far beyond lashing out against older generations, this is what is tearing down all lines of decensary that our forefathers held steadfast as they faced horrible events, which occur so often through out our history. Their ideals are what allowed them to triumph over the insermountable odds. The most direct way from one point to another is a staight line, and the best way to stop a problem is to cut it off from the source. Crime rates have risen tremendously and many would never try to walkthrough certain places at night. Although rap is not the sole reason, it is still an undeniable factor. Trying to curb the effects of rap has failed time and time again, now we have the option of dealing the final blow to this maniacle music. I urge you to support this proposition, becausing saying that you do not is the same as saying that you condone the killing of the weak, the innocent, the downtrotten, the unlucky, and worst of all the protectors of these misfortunate groups of people that can not fend for themselves. The decision is yours and yours alone. Please do the right thing: Yes on the proposal to ban rap forever."

From what I read here, your 'god' beleive this is a parental control issue. Is the NSUN in the business of parenting all the worlds children???

i did not say it was jsut a parental issue, but he did say that it is the cause of crime around the world, and i believe that is an issue worth debating in the UN

Well, then, Rooneius, would you care to give us a credible, comprehensive, real-world study which shows that the rising popularity of rap music has, in and of itself, led to a stunning increase in crime? Care to find a trial where the gunning down of a police officer was specifically blamed on rap music? Care to demonstrate that the vast majority of criminals listen to rap and only rap? Care to demonstrate that these people, had they not listened to rap, would have been perfectly fine and productive citizens? Care to point out real-world situations where the banning of rap, in and of itself, has led to a significant drop in crime rates?

yes.

i did not say it was jsut a parental issue, but he did say that it is the cause of crime around the world, and i believe that is an issue worth debating in the UN

Poverty, war, and hunger are also 'cause's of crime around the world' perhaps dealing with these issues, which are truly international issues, would mitigate the dissatisfaction which causes youth to turn to violence in the first place. Banning the music formed from that dissatisfaction only serves to increase the aforementioned state of dissatisfaction, and to further fuel fuel the profits of 'black marketeers' who would benefit substantually from this proposal.

If you are againt this proposal, then that is you personal opinion, but to say it violates freedom of speech, i think it does not. You must realize the difference between license and freedom. You are correct in the veiw freedom of speech must be protect, but even having freedom of speech does not give a person the right to say whatever that person wants to. A person can not go into a room and yell fire, when there is no fire. That would fall under license, not freedom of speech. This line between license and freedom is what allows a government to protect the rights of others. If a person verbally harasses and abuses another, is not it a goverments job to protect that person by preventing the other from verbally attacking the other. Some offensive rap does the same to general classes of people. What is the difference between sending a death threat to someone specific, and saying that innocent, defender of justice like police must be killed. All I am calling for is that the United Nations pushes the border between freedom and license, by extending license to include harrasments of generalizations of people in music like it has already been done in so many other categories of basic, everday life.

just as communists and other various politcal partied who exploit people to a dangerous point are frowned upon, so should rappers. both portray a negative image of how one should live his/her life and promote violence which only serves as a menace to society. how u may ask? when society views it the norm to hear of murders and what not in song form repeatedly they become dissensitized to it. this can only lead to the lack of moral compass in our youths, who will one day be ruling our world.

If you are againt this proposal, then that is you personal opinion, but to say it violates freedom of speech, i think it does not. You must realize the difference between license and freedom. You are correct in the veiw freedom of speech must be protect, but even having freedom of speech does not give a person the right to say whatever that person wants to. A person can not go into a room and yell fire, when there is no fire. That would fall under license, not freedom of speech. This line between license and freedom is what allows a government to protect the rights of others. If a person verbally harasses and abuses another, is not it a goverments job to protect that person by preventing the other from verbally attacking the other. Some offensive rap does the same to general classes of people. What is the difference between sending a death threat to someone specific, and saying that innocent, defender of justice like police must be killed. All I am calling for is that the United Nations pushes the border between freedom and license, by extending license to include harrasments of generalizations of people in music like it has already been done in so many other categories of basic, everday life.

Again, this is a national issue. Why should the NSUN dictate to an anarchist state with no authority figures and therefore noone for the rap music to threaten, be concerned about this issue. -or- Why should a state that only allows rap music to be played, produced, and distributed be made to stop all musical entertainment to provide for this proposal. Each nation, within it's own sovereignty has the right to regulate it's own morals through whatever means it sees fit, this proposal falls within the 'morals' catagory, and as such directly countrivenes the sovereignty of nation-states.

Are you saying that the UN doesnt already control the worlds children to a degree? Child Labor Laws directly effect children, Releif services control wheither children have food, and can go to school in third world countries, and there are so many other examples of this!

There's a difference between ensuring that everyone gets their basic human rights, enchancing social equity, and prevention of exploitation and constricting what choices we as a person can do.

IMHO, rhis proposal crosses the line from enhancing the state of living throughout the world to policing the lives of individuals. Not only will you(and anyone who supports this proposal) be dictating what is morally right, you are removing the freedom of one to choose what he or she does as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.

Are you saying that the UN doesnt already control the worlds children to a degree? Child Labor Laws directly effect children, Releif services control wheither children have food, and can go to school in third world countries, and there are so many other examples of this!

Control of child exploitation and control of transfer of parental values (or lack of such) are two entirely different issues. If a parent either listens to or allows there offspring to listen to any particular form of music it is not the duty of an international body to tell them they are wrong or right, at best this is the job of the parents involved, at worst it is the job of either the nation-state or the regional authority within that nation-state. This issue would be simular to the NSUN proposing to ban civilian use of camoeflage clothing because it promotes the ideas of military power over diplomacy in international affairs.

In short, rap music (and by extention all anti-authority media) are the symptom NOT the problem as I pointed out in an earlier post on this thread.

are u implying that is is morally correct to teach killing our innoncence?

are u implying that is is morally correct to teach killing our innoncence?

Where might I ask did you find this implication? I am doing more then implying that this is not an international issue, this a parental issue, music by it's own nature is neither harmful nor harmless it is entertainment. What a small percentage of youths do about the particular media is a legal affair of the nation state involved. Only in the rare instance that a fan of this music travel to a foreign country could this issue be remotely considered international in scope.

In case you missed my point, again, the scope of this issue is not international. Nor does this proposal take into account the innumerable songs, written in 'Rap' format, that contain no harmful lyrics. Nor does this proposal take into account songs are not in the 'Rap' genre but either protray violence or could be interpretted to do so.

this music is played internationally. therefore it is an international case. the music is giving the wrong moral implications to people all over the world. im pretty sure the last time i checked that all over the world mean international.

this music is played internationally. therefore it is an international case. the music is giving the wrong moral implications to people all over the world. im pretty sure the last time i checked that all over the world mean international.

When an issue can no longer be controled by the most localized authority, it is passed onto a higer, more powerful authority. This is no longer an issue that can just be controlled by a child's parents, it has long surpassed that. An international issue is an issue faced by multiple nations. I feel that this issue applies to severeral nations, and should be delt with on a national level, with regulations made by an international ruling body, such as the United Nations.

Another thing is, should you really be determining this issue by how "moral" you view. Morality is a concept of religon, which must be seperated from government. How ethical it is your opinion. You have a legitimate right to that opinion, as we, the supporters of this proposition, have the right to our opinion.

this music is played internationally. therefore it is an international case. the music is giving the wrong moral implications to people all over the world. im pretty sure the last time i checked that all over the world mean international.

At least as many people are harmed by soccer (european football) is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate it out of existance, internationally?

At least as many people are harmed in motor vehicle accidents is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate it out of existance, internationally?

At least as many people are harmed in airplane accidents is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate it out of existance, internationally?

At least as many people are harmed by electricity is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate it out of existance, internationally?

At least as many people jump from bridges and/or buildings is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate them out of existance, internationally?

At least as many people are harmed in industrial accidents is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate it out of existance, internationally?

In fact at least as many people are harmed in every activity of life, and all activities in life have an equal chance of a percentage of persons taking that activity to a fanatical level...at what point do you stop legislating, and at what point is such legislation to much?

all those activities you just mentioned are avid points. but those people who participate in soccer or jumping from buildings do so with their own free will knowing full well the risks. But the people who are harmed by someone who is influenced negatively by rap and hurts another human being, that person who was hurt did not volunteer to be attacked. And it is true that there are other dangers out there. And many should be dealt with but right now i am having a single matter addressed and cannot solve all of the worlds problems at once. I am concentrating on solving the problem of the negative influence rap has on people and those who interact with these people.

this music is played internationally. therefore it is an international case. the music is giving the wrong moral implications to people all over the world. im pretty sure the last time i checked that all over the world mean international.

At least as many people are harmed by soccer (european football) is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate it out of existance, internationally?

At least as many people are harmed in motor vehicle accidents is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate it out of existance, internationally?

At least as many people are harmed in airplane accidents is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate it out of existance, internationally?

At least as many people are harmed by electricity is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate it out of existance, internationally?

At least as many people jump from bridges and/or buildings is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate them out of existance, internationally?

At least as many people are harmed in industrial accidents is it your suggestion that a proposal should be written to legislate it out of existance, internationally?

In fact at least as many people are harmed in every activity of life, and all activities in life have an equal chance of a percentage of persons taking that activity to a fanatical level...at what point do you stop legislating, and at what point is such legislation to much?

These have nothing to do with the issue at hand. We are not saying that rap should be outlawed because it causes physical or emotional harm to a person. We are saying that rap should be outlawed because it conveys the message of violence and indecency to others. When was the last time you heard soccer, automobiles,airplanes, electricity telling people to kill the innocent. There is a difference between killing innocent people and telling other individuals to kill or that it is ok to kill innocent people. I have not heard any of these things telling others to kill the innocent or even that it is ok to kill the innocent.

These have nothing to do with the issue at hand. We are not saying that rap should be outlawed because it causes physical or emotional harm to a person. We are saying that rap should be outlawed because it conveys the message of violence and indecency to others. When was the last time you heard soccer, automobiles,airplanes, electricity telling people to kill the innocent. There is a difference between killing innocent people and telling other individuals to kill or that it is ok to kill innocent people. I have not heard any of these things telling others to kill the innocent or even that it is ok to kill the innocent.

I repeat:

"Nor does this proposal take into account the innumerable songs, written in 'Rap' format, that contain no harmful lyrics. Nor does this proposal take into account songs which are not in the 'Rap' genre but either protray violence or could be interpretted to do so."

"In short, rap music (and by extention all anti-authority media) are the symptom NOT the problem as I pointed out in an earlier post on this thread."

"Again, this is a national issue. Why should the NSUN dictate to an anarchist state with no authority figures and therefore noone for the rap music to threaten, be concerned about this issue. -or- Why should a state that only allows rap music to be played, produced, and distributed be made to stop all musical entertainment to provide for this proposal. Each nation, within it's own sovereignty has the right to regulate it's own morals through whatever means it sees fit, this proposal falls within the 'morals' catagory, and as such directly countrivenes the sovereignty of nation-states."

No proponent of this issue has stated in anyway how this proposal addresses these issues.

A person can not go into a room and yell fire, when there is no fire. That would fall under license, not freedom of speech.

Yeah, and do you know why a person can't do things like that? It's because the Supreme Court ruled a few decades ago that Congress can limit that speech which creates a clear and present danger -- something frequently referred to as the clear-and-present-danger test among those who know of it. Shouting "fire!" can and is in fact fairly likely to directly lead to injury -- thus, it can be treated as a criminal act -- but I've yet to see even the tiniest bit of evidence from you fools that rap leads to significant amounts of injury or crime.

What is the difference between sending a death threat to someone specific, and saying that innocent, defender of justice like police must be killed.

Another issue the Supreme Court took up when the Communist Party was cited for advocating overthrow of government. The court's ruling was that an abstract advocation of violence -- one which is nonspecific and does not demonstrably incite violence -- is protected.

just as communists and other various politcal partied who exploit people to a dangerous point are frowned upon, so should rappers.

There's more than a slight difference between "frowning upon" something and banning it outright. I really, really hope you realize that.

this can only lead to the lack of moral compass in our youths, who will one day be ruling our world.

I'm still waiting for all those studies and evidence of yours which will prove or at least support this absurd statement.

Are you saying that the UN doesnt already control the worlds children to a degree? Child Labor Laws directly effect children, Releif services control wheither children have food, and can go to school in third world countries, and there are so many other examples of this!

Wow, what a sound argument. "We have child labor restrictions and international aid, so clearly we should restrict free speech, too!" I don't see the logical continuity, sorry.

are u implying that is is morally correct to teach killing our innoncence?

Sure, why not, let's take your silly attack at face value. Are you implying that tyrranical government is acceptable and normal? Do we want to establish a system where the government can remove and persecute those who protest on the grounds that they "interfere" and are "dangerous" without having to prove them so? These people have not necessarily committed any crime -- where they have, they should be arrested and tried in court; where they have not, you should not mind them. The people, not the government, sets the soundtrack of life.

this music is played internationally. therefore it is an international case. the music is giving the wrong moral implications to people all over the world. im pretty sure the last time i checked that all over the world mean international.

I'd disagree. Your government has no right or legitimate authority to mandate the morality of the people of other nations in this case. Suppose that people all over the world eat chicken. One particular theocracy states adamantly that the consumption of chicken is an abomination. By your definition, since people everywhere eat, this food is an international issue.

Another thing is, should you really be determining this issue by how "moral" you view.

Wow, I wasn't expecting to see that. You do know that your argument is more than half-based on morality, I hope, yes? Toss that out the window, and you're almost purposely setting yourself up for defeat.

...those people who participate in soccer or jumping from buildings do so with their own free will knowing full well the risks.

Yeah... people who listen to rap are secretly being raped by the music. You hit the nail right on the head.

the people who are harmed by someone who is influenced negatively by rap and hurts another human being, that person who was hurt did not volunteer to be attacked.

Again, you have no evidence to support the foolish theory that rap creates crime.

We are saying that rap should be outlawed because it conveys the message of violence and indecency to others.

Ah, yes, because we all know that the only possible theme of rap is random murdering en masse. Especially of cops. There is no possible other message that could be conveyed by such music. I'll find an aria that advocates killing the innocent; should we ban operas, too?

To quote myself (which is just sad)

The support for this proposal is based on broad generalisation.

This proposal will take away freedom of speech.

So that would be a no from us.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Violent, divisive and money-worshipping trends in rap are a symptom, not a cause. If you are troubled by them, we suggest that you look to the inclusiveness of your society.

just as communists and other various politcal partied who exploit people to a dangerous point are frowned upon, so should rappers. both portray a negative image of how one should live his/her life and promote violence which only serves as a menace to society. how u may ask? when society views it the norm to hear of murders and what not in song form repeatedly they become dissensitized to it. this can only lead to the lack of moral compass in our youths, who will one day be ruling our world.

Communists exploit people to a dangerous point? My friend, you need to have a long think about what capitalism does, it seems.

And Rap. Not all rap is like you described.

maybe not all rap advocates killing of the innocent, but maybe not all guns are loaded. that doesnt mean guns still dont kill people. u cant know what the rap lyrics are supporting or saying or putting down until u read them or listen to them. its like russian roulette.

maybe not all rap advocates killing of the innocent, but maybe not all guns are loaded. that doesnt mean guns still dont kill people.

That hardly makes sense. If a gun isn't loaded, it can't kill anyone. If a rap song doesn't talk about killing people at all, you're going to have to be pretty crazy to debate that it kills people. I already think you're foolish for debating that all rap leads to killing and murder and mayhem -- and I suppose I should point out that the three of you have yet to provide any evidence to support your claims.

Take your logic to its extreme, and what do you get? Well, there are some people who kill people, just as there are some guns that kill people, just as you rant that there are supposedly some songs that kill people; should we imprison all people to be sure no one commits murder?


u cant know what the rap lyrics are supporting or saying or putting down

So you're saying we should ban something despite our apparently complete lack of understanding of its meaning?

its like russian roulette.

No. It's not. Music doesn't kill people. Rap songs don't have a barrel, a single bullet, five empty chambers, a hammer, a firing pin, a trigger, and people betting over potential death.

Like I have said before, We should BAN BRITNEY SPEARS MUSIC. Let's focus on real issues people.





Signed

Ken Masta UN Rep