[stametseater]

The reason I mentioned my opinion is because it's an example of opinions which are suppressed. You have demonstrated this, by insisting that nobody could possibly have and express my opinion in good faith (despite your insistence, I earnestly do believe what I've said, in good faith.) Such proclamation of bad faith are an attempt to suppress the expression of opinions like my own, you have tacitly declared my comment to be a violation of the forum rules and therefore deserving of suppression.

Your reaction to my statement has proved logicalmonster's point: "Most comments on HN on this topic that veer outside of a narrow range of acceptable thoughts, even from those people that generally support this topic, are flagged and killed."

You haven't succeeded in getting my comments flagged, but you called for it. I knew you would, and that's why I made that comment. To give you an opportunity to demonstrate your censorious inclinations.

Also Chris2048 is right:

> No, you don’t need to conduct a study to state your opinions. But at the same time, your opinion is meaningless

This is double-speak. You don't require me to have opinions based on scientific studies, but at the same time my opinions are worthless. That's double-speak.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Such proclamation of bad faith are an attempt to suppress the expression of opinions like my own, you have tacitly declared my comment to be a violation of the forum rules and therefore deserving of suppression.

No, it's much broader than that. It's a claim that your statement is outside the bounds of what a human could honestly think, and therefore that it's invalid anywhere, not just here.

"If you're being honest, you agree with me. If you disagree, you are being dishonest." That's either very narrowminded, or a very cheap rhetorical gambit.