I'm not talking about roll playing questions like "I'm a Roman latrine cleaner, what is my quality of life?" But stuff like this which got quickly downvoted. Upon reading it, I had a number of uncharitable thoughts, before I realized OP really was asking a valid question. Given that, I answered to the best of my ability and started hating whatever education system failed to adequately prepare someone to be able to answer what to most of us here should be a simple answer.
There are truly stupid questions out there, but there are a number that look bad, but should be answered and treated as valid, even if on the surface it appears stupid or offensive.
Part of the reason this sub exists is to help dispel the myths that people are taught in schools. Most people aren't interested in history and don't go out of their way to try and dispel these myths. Frankly, I think that person should be given credit for at least coming here and trying learn something new. Downvoting a question because you think it is "stupid" is in itself moronic and not in the spirit of this sub. Everyone has misconceptions about some part of history, and we are here to clear them up. Downvoting a perfectly legitimate question helps nobody.
I think there's a need to distinguish between "uninformed but legitimate questions" and "pointed questions with an agenda".
Clearly, we shouldn't downvote/censor/ignore legitimate questions, no matter how ignorant. However, when someone tries to mask an agenda with a pointed question on the way to a "gotcha ya!", that does deserve the banhammer.
For the question linked, the text indicates that the OP is weighing the morality of death vs the utility of human experimentation. I even get the impression that OP may be young and this is the first time s/he has thought of these things. So, good question, if a bit ignorant, as to be expected from someone just learning about the holocaust. However, if you read just the title, I could see that changing to "well, if we learned all these good things, Hitler wasn't such a bad guy after all!", and that kind of racist, neo-Nazi claptrap certainly deserves some downvotes.
I think most redditors can be forgiven for not reading past the title if the title indicates the question is inane or a trap.
The linked question would fit in perfectly with several philosophy and history courses I took in college. A member of my dissertation committee actually lectured about the topic as part of medical ethics courses and public talks.
There are certain categories of questions that contain such hot button issues that it is very difficult to discern the substance of the question.
Using your linked example about the medical experiments in the Holocaust, the question can, legitimately be recast as questioning whether value ever comes out of unethical experiments. Very few would posit repeating those atrocities, but the underlying question I agree has merit.
Let me give you a very current example. No one suggest do medical experiments on newborn babies by withholding known efficacious treatment.
The protocol for treating babies born of HIV positive mothers is well established and effective. But there was one mother in the US who withdrew herself and her baby from care, disappeared if you will, and then returned to medical contact. From that the doctors have determined that a different protocol is effective. The New York Times article of March 6, 2014 summarizes the point.
Ask Historians is heavily moderated. It is reasonable o ask that inflammatory questions be assessed whether there is an underlying question that can be rephrased or is merely for the purpose of giving offense and should be pulled.
The next step is to modify the offending question to get to the substance. Using the same example the question could have been modified to ask whether there was sufficiently documented scientific method use in the concentration camps to yield any reliable data, or, are there any documented circumstances where unethical human experimentation yielded usable data.
The risk is that some will see that question as a justification for future atrocities but there is a corresponding possibility that any good can be salvaged from demonstrable evil.
Here is my bias: I am a Jewish woman in my mid 60's. My first husband's family lost substantial numbers in the camps.
Hold on, does it matter if it gets up voted or down voted?
Op had his question answered, if others have the same question they'll search for it, find it, absorb and move on, right?