>That "I don't have a clue" bit is what the parent was referring to as "conspiracy theory rhetoric." Asking questions without making any assertions, the only re

>That "I don't have a clue" bit is what the parent was referring to as "conspiracy theory rhetoric." Asking questions without making any assertions, the only real aim of the text is to create doubt. So intellectual honesty == conspiracy theorist? I feel like admitting that I don't know is better. >A lunatic can ask more questions than a genius can ever answer. Picking a likely theory and arguing for it is much more difficult than arguing that any of the available theories has a nonzero chance of being true. I provided sources including CBC. It's not an unfounded position, there's plenty of meat to discuss. What can I assert? Nothing, I'm not in manitoba and the only source of knowledge(CBC) is calling themselves conspiracy theorists or unfounded. Which is hilarious to me. >Don't get me wrong: it's very fun. I love conspiracy theory as recreation. But engaging in actual good faith debate is a different sport entirely. It's both much more difficult, and a much better way to arrive at truth. Nobody is going to find out the truth if it's a huge coincidence or not. There is no arriving to the truth. The interesting discussion is how you're not allowed to discuss the subject. This is the same mechanism as why the CBC are calling themselves conspiracy theorists. Which can only be seen as political propaganda.