No, it's really not--it's only dangerous if you give the answer but not the reasoning (i.e. not the thinking process).

Also, did you notice that you didn't address my argument at all?

Here's what you sound like to me: "You have a moral right to drive as fast as you want; you don't have a moral right to crash into people and kill them. Very dangerous to tell people how fast they can and can't drive."

The situation is pretty simple, but it's not that simple. You have a moral obligation to not just avoid intending to harm others, but also to avoid likely accidents that will harm others. Endorsing highly flawed and error-prone thinking patterns will likely lead to incorrect beliefs (by accident, but a foreseeable and avoidable one) which pose considerable risk of causing harmful behavior. Once you have the mistaken beliefs, it's too late; your agency, and moral responsibility, comes in at the time when you are choosing how to conduct yourself while forming and confirming your beliefs.

Shooting in the air is dangerous, driving 300 kph on residential streets is dangerous, and gullibly accepting sensational claims of child trafficking rings in the basement of a pizzaria that doesn't have a basement is dangerous. If you believe it's true, it's immoral to not act in some way. But it's immoral to indulge your beliefs instead of examining them, especially if your belief compels action that, if you're wrong, would cause undue and unjust harm.