-5

This question has some problems that I will explain below. First, I want to state that my view I state below about the question is not directed at the original poster. I assume good intentions by the original poster, but feel strongly that there are deeper implications to the question than intended.

The question has the following basic requirements for an answer:

1 Explain to a 6-10 year old why violence in society is OK
2 I'd like answers to presuppose that there are valid justifications behind rioting

First and least I believe this question is highly opinionated and not appropriate for this site simply because there is nothing close to an answer that would be accepted in general. Every person's personal culture, religion, family history would strongly fashion their own personal response.

More importantly the question is FORCING an answer that accepts violence against innocent people as a valid answer to a problem AND for that violence against innocent people to be explained (taught) to a child aged as young as 6-10.

We live in a law abiding society and teaching 6-10 year olds the validity of violence against innocent victims is highly inappropriate. Again, I divorce my viewpoint of the question itself from the person who asked the question. I believe that my understanding of the question lies outside the viewpoint of the poster and thus cannot be assigned to the person. However, the content of the question is valid for scrutiny outside of the context it was asked in.

This site should not allow content that forces responses which legitimize the destruction of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of any innocent individual for any reasons whatsoever.

I request this question be closed. I believe this question lies outside the bounds of the answer here about censorship. Therefore, I further request this question and the answers be censored, because this question assumes to support and validate violence against innocents and the teaching of this to children.

Again, this is in no way an attack against the person who posted the question. I see this as a dangerous question and want to ensure the dangerous part is understood as best I can express it. In no way do I see the poster as a dangerous person. This is an impartial review of the content and merit of the question as it relates to parenting 6-10 year olds and this family of websites.

  • Just a side note considering the vote count of this question: For Meta posts tagged <discussion>, up- and downvotes traditionally follows different rule than average posts, votes indicate agreement or disagreement, they don’t reflect the quality of the post. – Stephie Jun 4 '20 at 19:06
5

You have obviously misread the question. What the OP is asking for is explanations - he is not asking for justifications. Like a few other questions here, the point seems to be to be able to explain why rioters are doing what they are doing - what their justifications may be.

There is nothing there supporting or validating violence.

  • 1
    You are hitting my point on the head unknowingly. You may be reading the question in a smaller context, yet there is a larger context which exists to the question. That is my point. Mods have cleaned up comments even more, which is troublesome itself, but the poster has repeatedly said he wants to explain to a child why it is valid to riot such as in the current US George Floyd circumstances. Just because you say 'There is nothing supporting or validating violence' doesn't make it true. He explicitly stated he wanted to assume the violence was valid. – Adam Heeg Jun 4 '20 at 17:56
  • 1
    No - he hasn't said that. He has very clearly asked how he can explain why those people have done it. Here we do not challenge the frame of the discussion. And it was me who cleaned up the comments that were, to be honest, trying to make it more than that. – Rory Alsop Jun 5 '20 at 6:39
  • 1
    While I'm on the other side of the fence from Adam, I do share his interpretation of the question. If you were only trying to remove comments that were "trying to make it more", note that some of the removed comments were from the OP. – dxh Jun 5 '20 at 10:58
  • Those ones were removed as they were responses to ones I removed. – Rory Alsop Jun 5 '20 at 12:56
  • 1
    @RoryAlsop Sadly, the comments moved to chat under the main question do not have the comment I made and the response where the OP stated something along the lines, 'I want answers that validate rioting and if you don't like that please don't answer'. The question still states "there is certainly a valid undertone here. I'm also not interested in "people should never do this" answers; I want to know how to explain why they do," I've said my peace which was my goal. I don't think I'm reading it wrong. I won't be rioting if you still don't agree. :P – Adam Heeg Jun 5 '20 at 21:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .