That's not a legit justification to censor people's opinions or attempt to control other's thoughts. 

Calling people out for lying is censoring them? Last time I checked, spreading false claims is not a human right. Why should it be fine to leave people ignorant? Isn't it in everyone's including their interest to be enlightened?

Might as well ban all school marks and imprison all teachers who dared to tell students what they are saying is wrong. What a dangerous path to embrace ignorance.

They're like the flat earthers. They believe what they want in spite of evidence. It could be argued than religious people are like that. You don't have any right to censor them. Ya can challenge their ideas but no censoring or locking them up. 

That's no different the parents who get their kid to transition when it's 5. It's a matter of perspective. 

False. Non-vaccination is helping preserve illnesses that killed millions in the past, were nearly eradicated and now who knows how many more will kill, so the choice of parents who don't vaccinate their kids have an impact on the entire world. In your example only the kid will suffer the consequences of bad parenting.

False. Non-vaccination is helping preserve illnesses that killed millions in the past, were nearly eradicated and now who knows how many more will kill, so the choice of parents who don't vaccinate their kids have an impact on the entire world. In your example only the kid will suffer the consequences of bad parenting.

Well, vaccinated people wouldn't be affected by it even if there's an outbreak.  That's the point of getting vaccinated. Unvaccinated people can be vaccinated when they change their mind or when the kids get older. In the U.S., it's not an issue because we're fairly clean and we have the medical resources to deal with any issues.

There's still plenty of places in the world where a lot of these diseases still exists so it's virtually impossible to eradicate them from the world. That's a bigger issue than a handful of people in the states being stubborn. 

That's not true, kids with health problems (HIV, for example) may not be as resistant. Some vaccines can't be taken until a certain age due to the immune system of children not being ready for them. What's your plan, have people keep their kids hidden in their houses (even without going to school) until then to make a bunch of lunatics happy?

Smallpox was eradicated so it's doable.

It's a bad post because it uses a straw man argument. Where I and others argue for moderations is in cases of unsubstantiated opinions where the person who expresses such opinions shows no signs of acceptance for counter-arguments that are backed up with facts and strongly contradict the unsubstantiated opinion. An unsubstantiated opinion on its own would not be grounds for moderation, only the insistence that said unsubstantiated opinion should be allowed to stand. A good and recent example of this is quickrick's method of discourse where he ignored facts and subsequently got banned for trolling. This is how things should be moderated. If he were allowed to do as he pleases, it would set a bad example for discussions on these forums as a whole.

Someone who posts an unsubstantiated opinion and changes their point of view in light of presented facts would have nothing to fear, therefore people would remain free to express their opinions. The only change from consistent moderation is that everyone would be held accountable for what they post, but that's a positive thing as it allows members of the community to grow as persons which in turn would improve the overall level of discourse. Once it is clear that being knowledgeable is valued higher by the mod team and community than hogwash posting, knowledge becomes something that is worth striving for.

Similarly to Aeolus, you fail to provide a comparable situation to what is actually being discussed. The reason why no staff member who provides sales estimates is up for moderations is because none of them label the estimates as fact. It's a huge difference whether something is an estimate or passed off as fact, because the former makes no claim of being true and at the same time is open to adjustments as soon as better information surfaces.

Unsubstantiated opinions arrive at a fork in the road: Go down path 1 where nothing can change the opinion or go down path 2 where you are open-minded to new information. Paragraph 1 of my post describes path 1 and that should be dealt with. Paragraph 2 of my post describes path 2 and should be encouraged. Paragraph 3 is a practical example of path 2.