Is this question Rude?

Question

Here's the question (spoilers for Avengers: Infinity War): Why did this work?

The underlying idea of this question is that a person cannot love an adopted child as much as a natural child, and then, assuming this fact, asks how sacrificing such a child can ever be the same as sacrificing a natural one. The question is heavily downvoted (currently at -28), but remains open and has no close votes. In an answer, @gowenfawr states:

To suggest adoption belies love is naive to the point of being offensive, quite frankly, which probably explains the downvotes on the question.

Is this question Rude or Abusive as would generally be considered flaggable? I've been conflicted. I've been thinking off and on about flagging it, but have been afraid that doing so would just give me an unnecessary declined flag and perhaps some unneeded ill-will from the mods.

Reasons in favor of flagging

The inherent premise of this question is a concept widely considered offensive. It seems similar to a question asking "How can Janeway be a starship captain? She's a woman!"
The question can't easily be edited to remove the offensive part without changing the nature of the question, invalidating the current answer.

Reasons against flagging

This question has survived for four months without getting closed or deleted.
The question has an upvoted, accepted answer that almost represents a "turnaround" of the concept (yet, I know that on SE, answers and questions are supposed to be judged separately).

What's the Meta consensus? Is this question Rude or otherwise flaggable, or should it just be a "downvote and move on" type of thing?

Whilst I find the premise of the question quite offensive in it's reasoning, it actually appears to be asked in good faith. — TheLethalCarrot, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:28
And FWIW I certainly thought about flagging it when it came in but decided against it. — TheLethalCarrot, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:31
I find it offensive and opinion-based. I've actioned it accordingly. — Valorum, Sep 10, 2018 at 14:14
Note that the question has now been edited to remove the language in question. — Blackwood, Sep 10, 2018 at 16:05
I remember this question, but somehow I thought it was years old. — Rand al'Thor, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:54
Good faith is irrelevant. Someone could ask, in good faith, a question that assumes certain people are less than human. No excuse. — Conrad Bennish Jr, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:02
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it rude, but I do find it to be subjective (how a parent might love an adopted child is going to vary by individual) and very general, even though it is asked within the context of a certain universe. The OP seems to be motivated more by his/her opinion on adoption than any opinions on adoption found in the work he/she is asking after. I think downvoting and/or editing is sufficient. The question is a bit brusque, but not outright rude. — Slytherincess, Sep 22, 2018 at 19:52
Ridiculous. That's what the suggestion is. If interpreting love that way is offensive then I would love to know how they view my interpretation of love for most of my life - really until 2.33 years ago. The idea it's offensive is even more absurd when it's how they felt having been adopted themselves. Emotions aren't based on logic anyway and the idea in the original question is an emotional thing. If they find offence in someone's interpretation of who can and cannot love they're just looking for offence. — Pryftan, Sep 22, 2018 at 20:45
As for your comparison: "How can Janeway be a starship captain? She's a woman!" That's so very different. I don't like children at all but my understanding is that most hold their own children (as in biological) more special than anything at all. I wouldn't be this way and I know that without a doubt but still. Your comparison is something else. It's saying that a woman isn't capable of leading. It's as if you're saying she can't be intelligent or whatever else because she's a woman. Leading isn't about emotion. Furthermore some people aren't capable of love. Their adoptive parents maybe? — Pryftan, Sep 22, 2018 at 20:59
The idea that a parent is likely to love a biological child more than an adopted one may be unpleasant, but is not false. The fact that some may find such an implication made in good faith unpleasant may be a great reason to voice disagreement, but is not a reason to ban it. Good discourse does not work that way. — Misha R, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:14

Skooba · Accepted Answer · 2018-09-10 15:04:10Z

12

I think this a valid question and the "offensive" part can easily be removed without changing the premise of the question.

I have done just that in an edit.

answered Sep 10, 2018 at 15:04

Skooba

59.6k1 gold badge24 silver badges72 bronze badges

4

Your edit changes the basic premise of the question. I'm not invested enough to bother rolling it back though.
– Valorum
Sep 10, 2018 at 15:27
5

@Valorum How does it change the premise? The premise is if Thanos loved Gamora enough for the sacrifice to work (pretty obvious answer in context IMO), her being adopted is not relevant.
– Skooba
Sep 10, 2018 at 15:29
7

Oh, it's certainly not relevant, but that's what OP was asking; How can Thanos love an adopted child enough for the Soul Stone to consider his sacrifice worthy? The edit entirely changes the meaning of the question. It improves it, but only by disfiguring it. Frankly you'd probably have been better off asking a new question, then we could dupe this one over to yours and have a mod merge the answers...
– Valorum
Sep 10, 2018 at 15:29
10

@Valorum I could agree that a new question that doesn't start with questionable content would probably fair much better, but I see no reason to leave offensive content just hanging out there when a simple edit can solve most of the problems (vote score notwithstanding). I guess we just can have different interpretation on what the question was asking, which I took be "Did Thanos love Gamora enough, when Gamora says he doesn't love anyone."
– Skooba
Sep 10, 2018 at 15:43

Add a comment |

TheLethalCarrot · Accepted Answer · 2018-09-10 11:37:14Z

9