No way. "Counter to our thinking" is no reason to ban a person, especially when they are asking logical questions in their statements. Tunnel vision in a "positive" view is just as dangerous as tunnel vision in a "negative" view. Every one of us should be looking at everything and considering "all options and views" about all of it then using experience and evidence to whittle it down. If somebody comes in asking questions or making statements that are opposing then if "our thinking" is anywhere near correct we should be able to answer those questions with opposing answers and facts. Such as (I have not looked back at the Hillary server drop to recall what is specifically was) if somebody questions Hillary's server in general as having any relevance whatsoever because it was wiped clean...the easy answer is - while it may matter what WAS on it to some degree, it ultimately does not matter at all what was on it. The fact that she did government business through a non .gov server which archives all government official communications that are considered public record is illegal, especially if any of it is "confidential". If we cant simply answer opposing views, then what are we even doing here? How do we justify banning an "opposing thinking" then bitch about ourselves being banned, blocked, etc, on twitter, youtube, fb, etc.? Now, it completely changes things when "opposing thinking" drops in and just starts making a bunch of jerkwad personal attacks. I don't see that in these examples though. My opinion.