Hey Americans, when is enough enough?

[Jind]

Well 80% of you guys have it hardwired into your heads that "I need proof before I believe anything." You rely on proof instead of logic.

So you believe that "conspiracy" is the more logical conclusion to many of life's events that have questions that are unanswered or at a minimum seem somewhat 'fishy smelling" on the surface?

Call me crazy but I'm a big believer in Occum's Razor - a concept I'm sure your familiar with that unfortunately tends to thwart many a conspiracy theorists tendencies as they progressively need to find extreme logical twists to match the story they see in their heads - they connect unrelated dots to paint the picture of a conclusion they desire others to have.

While the possibility that this was some conspiratorial assassination plot could be held up as a possible reality, it would be more logical to take those variables that create the tangled web of lies, silence, covertness, suppression out of the equation and believe those that new Aaron best.

While the simplest answer may not be the only answer or even the only correct one- it's just far more likely to be close to the truth than the infinite number of possible answers that can be created when one jumps down the rabbit hole of seeing a conspiracy in everything.

Perhaps I am programmed to look at situations in a logical framework, to believe that removing the largest unlikely variables sequentially will garner something close to the truth if not at a minimum the most reasonable answer is the best way to look at any given situation where either questions or an outright problem exists - it's this process that has served me fine up to now. I'd rather reduce the number of answers to any given question than exponentially convoluting the question with an infinite number of connected possibilities (each requiring a remarkable series of events) to come to the same conclusion.

While the complex answer may also be true, the variables required to support a more extravagant answer, or in this case the conspiratorial conclusion, opens far more questions requiring exponentially more assumptions than starting with the simplest answer that appears to be true.

All this said - hey, if you want to believe what you want to, who am I to tell you not to - you may well be right. I'm not naive - bad people do do bad things, people keep secrets, people say one thing and do another, people tell lies each and every day - even those that think themselves most honest. All that is true, but just because it's true does not make everybody part of a conspiracy to cover something up.

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

Maybe I am irrational and deluded. But I am certainly not the only one. This article is not the proof you are looking for. But the author does a better job explaining than I do:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/13/who-killed-aaron-swartz/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=who-killed-aaron-swartz

Here is your "proof" and why I don't trust proof these days.
Internet freedom activist Aaron Swartz was "killed by the government," his father told mourners Tuesday during his son's funeral in suburban Chicago.

I cannot find any other direct quotes from his father, or family (please supply them if you see them). Of course this could be interpreted in several ways. But if you want proof, then there is some for you. The father thinks the government killed his son. You could spin that quote a million ways. I am not sure which way he intended it, though I doubt he thinks the government suicided his son directly.