Obviously it has reasoning standards. They are much higher than the average person might expect, because that's one of the goals of the community.

Bias was an poor word to use, and I retract my use of the term. I mean that as a relatively new participant, there are ideas that seem far-fetched because I have not examined the arguments for them. I admit that this is nothing more than my visceral reaction. Until I examine each issue thoroughly, I won't be able to say anything but "that viscerally strikes me as biased." Cryonics, for instance, is a conclusion that seems far-fetched because I have a very poor understanding of biology, and no exposure to the discussion around it. Without a better background in the science and philosophy of cryonics, I have no way of incorporating casual acceptance of the idea into my own conclusion. I recognize that, admit it, and am apparently not being clear about that fact. In trying to express empathy with a visceral reaction of disbelief, I misused the word "bias" and will be more clear in the future.

On the second point: I understand that there's a cost to treating every post with the same rigor. Posts that are poorly reasoned, and come to potentially dangerous conclusions, should be examined more rigorously. Posts that are just as bad, but whose conclusions are less dangerous, can probably be taken less seriously. Even so...someone who makes many such arguments, with a mix of dangerous and less-dangerous conclusions, might see a lack of negative feedback as positive feedback. That's an issue in itself, but newcomers wouldn't be in a position to recognize that.