Alright, if all parties agree that it is harmful then yes it should stop. Obviously you and I have different opinions of what 'harmful' is and so it is necessary to discuss this in terms of what we 'believe' to be harmful.
Whether "all parties agree" is completely irrelevant to whether a harm actually exists. Reality is not contingent upon the thought processes of a human population. How could we ever determine a majority to be wrong if we begin from the assumption that the majority will always be drawn to the truth like children to the pied piper?
I don't understand what you think the other option is.
What about an informed approach? Why should simply having an opinion qualify you to determine truth? Do you consider a conclusion based on fact and knowledge of a subject to be on par with one reached from simply hearing someone pontificate about it?
As for the last bit - most of what we disagree on comes down to belief or a differing opinion on what we consider factual or important. This is how many if not most philosophical ideas or psychological actions need to be discussed.
Reality is not a democracy. The perspective that all ideas and conclusions are equally valid reduces truth to the outcome of a pissing match between dogmas vying for public adoration.