Bitcoin Forum

Here is a link to the full video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQPZ-taYBs) (if it isn't, link it and I'll update).

He was invited on a widely syndicated TV show and I think he really watered down his message by not calmly engaging in the debate.  He disrespected Piers on his show and they allows people who may be on the fence about this, to dismiss his message and the whole point of debate is really to sway people who have not fully dug in to a position.  Sure you can sometimes get them to re-evaluate their position but that is much more unlikely.

I support Mr. Jones historical examples of dis-arming the population and what usually happens and the fact we are not talking about these prescription drugs that most people are on that have serious black-box warnings about suicide and violent outbursts.  Also the fact the almost all of these mass killings, the people committing them were on them.  I will also add we have a culture that glorifies violence and that does have a sub-conscious affect of numbing us to real violence.

He really should of conducted himself more professionally on this program to really bring these issues into the MSM debate.  I believe he will be panned and dismissed because of this conduct.


Thoughts?

Dalkore

To be fair, Jones is as much of an alarmist as Morgan is, just on different issues, with a different target demo. Putting these two in the same room was a recipe for a shitstorm, and I'm not at all surprised to see that is exactly what happened.

A much more reasonable discussion (at least on the gun advocate side) is with John Lott (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNg664njk8), and Ice-T (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-GwIbyp4xBU) actually makes some damn fine points (though not to Piers).

@Myrkul - Yeah, they are both Alarmists.  Still I see it as a blown opportunity to real discuss these issues. 

Opportunity blown when Alex Jones was penciled into the schedule.

First article reviewing the debate:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2013/0108/Piers-Morgan-vs.-Alex-Jones-on-gun-control-Who-won-wild-debate (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2013/0108/Piers-Morgan-vs.-Alex-Jones-on-gun-control-Who-won-wild-debate)

If jones changed his Ranting a lot more fucking people would listen to him . And another thing the guy doesn't fukn listen when he has a guest.
They guys is Fully living in his own universe. . And, if he had more communication skills like * listening * maybe people would give him more time of day. . I don't disagree with his subject. i think they hold absolute truth. But ffs alex  " Calm the f k down. . Ranting outburst is not communicating . I followed him for a while but i couldn't agree with  the mad outbursts all the time. . he's getting the truth out there but in the coarsest way possible. A disservice . Yes . But he's still getiing the truth out there * cringe *. Fucking well educated though.

Me too, I used to enjoy listening to him on certain subjects from time to time but his ranting really turned me off even though his information, facts and messages were generally spot on.  I wonder if his friend and colleagues have said anything or if that is taboo?

 I really don't know. . I guess his model is still working more then it is harming. .Must be ???

 :D :D :D

Just saw the video, this is going to be a classic! Freako "I want my guns wahwahwah" screaming shit, attacking medical pills and thinking the US government blew up the 9/11. No wonder you guys want to keep your guns when you're as paranoid as this dude.

I don't really know Piers Morgan, but he's made of ice. Not even flinching while the crazy screamed at him for 15 minutes. I would have probably punched Alex Jones in the face after 2 minutes. Or maybe not...since you know, he have guns and 2nd amendment and stand your ground, he would have the right to kill me.  ::)

Anyway, all this just show that your 2nd amendment is more important than the first one.

Have you seen this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNg664njk8

It's easy to seem sane in comparison to Jones, which is, I assume, the reason he was invited on.

Well, now I've seen it! But I don't see the point you want to make. Lott is caught lying by Morgan and....?


Like I said, I don't really know him. All I saw was Alex Jones screaming at the interviewer, being completely impolite and disrespectful and also making some petition to deport him. And you're happy to give guns to people like this? No wonder you want a gun in your house when you know you have those Alex Jones with 52 weapons living in your country.

I think there's a lot more going on than you are aware of. If you take a listen ( at your leisure) of the likes of max keizer or gerald celente who are actually a lot more palatable: you'd know the guy wasn't actually talking shit.

Yeh he's reall good at that. 

Well, you see, that's the thing: It wasn't a lie. The incidence of violent crime in the UK did go up after the gun ban. Do I need to bring up the same article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html) Jones did? Jones is a loud, ranting asshole, but he's got the facts on his side. Morgan is a loud, ranting asshole, too, but the difference is he's arguing entirely from emotion.

Now, give him a little credit, maybe he's just afraid of a few pounds of blued steel.

Alex Jones did the proper thing. There was going to be no debate ... Piers Morgan has an agenda and it got snuffed out by Alex Jones it was the proper way to go about it.

You are wrong there.  They could of calmly went back and forth armed with their messages and facts and the audience could of made a decision to who was more persuasive. 

Mr. Jones went way overboard to a point where you could not even process the information over his red-meat slogans.   I can imagine another way this could of gone.

You've never watched any of Piers Morgan's previous debates, have you?

There is no "going back and forth" with a lunatic liberal like Piers Morgan.

You mean this kind of going back and forth right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNg664njk8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNg664njk8)

I think this is the part you don't understand.  Did he go back and forth with this man?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc)

 No, he insulted him and spewed propoganda.  All Jones did was beat him to it if anything.

I'm taking this quote, but it's a general answer (I'm not a fan of posts with tons of quotes in them).

From my own experience and living in a country that support a group of professionals being armed (police and army mainly) and the general population being disarmed(except for hobbies, like hunting), it works pretty damn well. It's not perfect, there is occasional slip-up, I agree. But you would be surprised how crime is not that problematic, how guns mass murdering occur rarely and how the homicide rate is pretty low.

Also, keeping guns as a way to counter government tyranny....I think it's a pretty shitty argument. For the last 250 years, we've been conquered and had many(Many!) conflicts with the english/canadian government. In 1995, there was missing 30 000 votes to make the Quebec province a country and split up Canada. Imagine if 30% of the US population was on the verge of splitting your country, that was the equivalent back in 1995. I know what it is to live under a government that is not really your own, that decide for themselves first and don't care about your interests. An example? Afghanistan war. Quebec voted against at 75%, rest of Canada voted for at 75%. We ended sending soldiers over there that got killed, for something we were clearly against. Our history is full of those examples (world war 1 and 2, Canada goes into war, send French-canadians on the front line cause we're a good meatshield).

But we're not taking arms or equipping our population with guns. Why? I think freedom of speech and "freedom of weaponry" are not compatible. Either you speak, either you shoot, you can't do both. If a person talks freely, people will listen to his speech. If a person talk pointing a gun, people will focus on the gun. The only speech will be what the weapon say. We were never armed in our history, our speeches were never useful in the short-term, but made great victories in the long-term.

We have different philosophies, you had your country by taking arms, we're aiming at getting ours by using democracy and freedom of speech. It's not about which one is better, it's about the results you want. Different philosophies gives different results in the end. The only thing I know is that for those nations out there who are oriented towards pacifism, democracy and freedom of speech, your philosophy is really unattractive and scary.

Who said anything about pointing? Owning, yes. Carrying, yes. Pointing? No. I should also point out that for all your speech and democracy, you're still subjects of a queen. ;)

The right to bear arms is what protects the right to free speech.

" It works pretty well"? Yeh it works " pretty well" for " some " people yeh. .

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

Australia has disarmed it’s citizens, and a year later the homicide rate in the largest province is up 300%. The burglaries of seniors is “dramatically” up.

You don't know that the American government is in Fascism.   

Jones was being disrespectful?

How about Piers Morgan being disrespectful as a citizen of the UK, towards the laws of the land to which he is a GUEST?

How about Piers Morgan being disrespectful towards Larry Pratt in this  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4JJWUtzkc)interview, even calling him "stupid" several times.

Piers Morgan does not deserve any respect. Way to go Alex. You may not admire Alex's form, the end result is what matters: Piers getting his ass handed to him.

You know who you're giving guns to when you advocate gun control? Criminals. They LOVE gun control. Gun control was in FULL EFFECT in Sandy Hook school that day. The 2nd amendment is banned in all schools in America. No self-defense for kids, its better they get slaughtered, right? That's sarcasm by the way.

Yeah, I know we're "subjects" of the queen, but she knows how we feel about her. It must be like 25 years since she last came visit her "subjects".  ;D Our province is probably the least safest place in the world for her, I hope she have a right bear arms  ;)


*EDIT*
Rob E and foggyb, you just prove my point. The attitude of gun first, speech later is what makes it so that US citizens are not that well appreciated outside your own country. Stop using guns to promote freedom and start using freedom to promote freedom. The individual right of owning a gun doesn't equal freedom.

I'm not here to change your mind, just to be the "outsider" point of view. You guys are ridiculous with your 2nd amendment. If you want to continue, please go on, it's your country. But I'll keep the right, like many people outside the US, to think that you're going too far with your gun mentality and that instead of welcoming people in your culture, you push them backwards. There's probably a way to give the possibility of armed citizens while being responsible, but right now, you're really acting like a bunch of crybaby that can't act responsibly.

Correlation does not imply causation. Mexico has a total gun ban for private citizens and their gun crime rate is near the highest on planet earth. I'm also a Canadian and I happen to be aware that in the (also peaceful) province of Alberta we have one of the highest rates of firearm ownership around, even compared to the USA.


What?? are you talking about? You'd be bowing down to the King of England (or maybe France) if it wasn't for guns and fighting government tyranny. Unbelievable.




Nonsense. You can't have one without the other. Read a history book. PLEASE.

Edit: What you call "freedom of weaponry" is really freedom of self-defense.

Oh, trust me, she has not given up her right to bear arms, nor have the guards with which she (along with all other political leaders) surrounds herself with. She knows the value of a weapon to protect her safety, and she intentionally deprives you of that value.

He made us look like lunatics.

The only reason he was on CNN is powerful people wanted him there, and he delivered in spades.

Why, for being passionate? Heaven forbid you should raise your voice, little mouse.

Oh, didn't know you were canadian in my edited post further up.

As for the history book, dude, do you know your own history? You know how Canada became independant of England? Was Trudeau armed when he brought the 1982 constitution?

Do you know also about the armed rebellion of 1837-1838 of the french-canadians? Yeah, we had guns back then, we even won a fight against the english army. You know how it ended up? It gave nothing. But some of the 92 resolutions sent to the english crown by the Patriots party back then were used to make the foundations of the canadian constitution of 1867.

Do you prefer that Quebec gets its own independance shooting at you with guns or do you prefer we use a democratic vote to get it? Because man, all this "government tyranny" argument, I have a long list of events where I can use it. We're forced to follow a constitution we never signed!!! I know what this "government tyranny" is about and you know what? Guns is not the answer. No fucking way I'm going to use a gun for a democratic project.

CNN is a serious platform. When you go on CNN you are rqational, logical, and debate reasonably, else you appear somewhat unhinged...

The CNN viewers are not awakened masses knowledgeable of some of our harshers realities. They are not activists. They are your mom and dad. Your aunts and uncles. Your neighbors.

Has nothing to do with courage or bravado.

More guns less crime. the statistics proof this you want to stick your head in the sand to avoiid the facts so your "peace" paradigm doesnt get rattled,  go abead do so, no skin of my nose. More guns less crime. Thats how it is. Those are the facts. You cant change that i cant change that. But you might want to look into it, no matter how contrary it is to what you are led to believe.

SURPRISE: MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME FOR DC?

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/12/11/surprise-more-guns-less-crime-for-dc/ (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/12/11/surprise-more-guns-less-crime-for-dc/)

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/dc-crime-620x382.jpg

http://usopenborders.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/GunOwnershipViolentCrimeEng1.gif

No, courage is not what made Piers Morgan run from his past sins in the UK. (faking news stories, fraud, etc.)

Did you watch the Larry Pratt versus Piers Morgan video on gun control? I suggest you do, and then tell me that Piers Morgan's platform is rational and logical. If you do, then you'll have to side with a guy who thinks "you really are a stupid person" is a rational and reasonable thing to say in a debate.

Who cares anyhow? CNN ratings are in the tank. I never watch them anymore.

You are missing the point.

It's about the perceptions of the viewer base... how they perceive Alex Jones. For the vast majority of CNN viewers, I am sure it's the first time they ever saw him. I believe he made a very bad first impression.

It does not matter what awakened people think. What matters is the other 99.9% of the VOTERS and what they think. That sway of public opinion.

Now, take into consideration the attacks on gun rights and the contitution - and the box of 'is antiquated or flexible', and add that to Alexs' lunacy and antics defending gun rights and the constitution... like I said, he made us look like lunatics to the only people who can help us retain the few freedoms we have left.

I dont think Alex is stupid. I think he is there for things just like this. The only question is, does Alex know it and participate in it knowingly. I believe he does, even if only as a dupe and a whore for the dollar and attention. No matter how you slice this, its bad for all of us.

People who still watch CNN and have never heard of Alex Jones are the type of people who cannot help the cause of freedom because their tiny brains can't comprehend what freedom is.

Alex Jones has much higher media rating than CNN. Remember that this video will get millions of views on youtube, and will awaken people who do understand whats at stake.

Remember, the anti-gun crowd already thinks gun owners are lunatics.

If this video is so damaging for the pro-gun cause, why has youtube pulled the video from the front page? It had nearly 800,000 views in a matter of hours.

but their tiny brains have opinions, and they vote, and they talk to their friends, and they gossip, and they send emails to their congressman and senators, and they invest money, and they run businesses...are you getting any of this yet?

Yes they are dupes and stupid conditioned sheeple. But they are the public .. the voters who have opinions that need swayed.

Alex Jones does not have a fraction of the ratings that CNN has, nor the exposure. He isnt even on tv except online. He has a medicre radio audience at best. Online he is king though.

I know people with connections watch CNN, but I get the feeling most of those people will never be on our side.

By the way, did you hear the producer of FPSRussia, 3rd largest youtube channel was found shot in the back of the head, tied to a chair in his house? It wasn't a robbery, nothing was touched.

Also, John Noveske, the founder of Noveske Rifleworks, died in a car accident last night.

At work, actually...
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/20538156/fpsrussia

Holy shit.

They knew he was going to fly off the handle, it was all planned. http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-detained-by-tsa/
But, for anyone who has listened to  AJ before, his behavior was no surprise.  Piers is a tool, anyone ever see the ventura interview. Why doesnt the media talk about the relationship of the anti-depressants and these shootings?  No one can argue that these people were mentally well.

All is not lost, some good came of his visit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8D8b51EwrI

Red-blooded American rant aside, I'll wager the majority of people will side with Alex after watching that video. No harm done & net positive benefit IMO. Exposing Piers Morgan's agenda, by itself, is a win.

If it happened once, that would one thing. If the inverse were not true, that would also be evidence... but the thing is, the inverse is true - more guns correlate with less crime - and it happens everywhere, every time these policies are enacted. That's causation.

So, our competing theories to explain all this correlation are:

1. Private gun ownership is an effective deterrent of crime, or;
2. Politicians - who can't even run an economy - accurately predict both crime waves and the reduction of crime in an area, and preemptively pass and lift gun bans appropriately.

I wonder what Fr. William of Ockham would have to say about that?

God, I hate piers morgan with a passion. Every night I tune in to watch the latest bullshit anti gun propaganda this British citizen broadcasts to U.S. Citizens. And every night im disgusted by what I see, 4/5 of the time the guests on his show are anti gun, a few nights ago he has some idiotic kid who got shot in columbine who knows nothing about guns, politics, or the Constitution for that matter talk anti gun bullshit. Gun legislation DOES NOT stop violence. Look at Britian where the peice of garbage comes from they have more crime then the United States, not more gun deaths, but more crime. An armed society is a safe society.

Why? If you want him off the air, why are you giving ratings?

Watch something that won't raise your blood pressure, instead.

Agreed, you have to not pay attention to that propaganda.   He is a shill and most intelligent people know that.

The problem is the guys who jump to defend guns always seem to be the ones who fly off the handle the easiest, it's a shame that there wasn't any sane gun owners out there going on the internet "Look, you're talking bullshit, I've been keeping guns in my house for a good portion of my life and nothing bad has happened" but no, instead we had raving lunatics on either side coming to blows at each other and looking like morons. I think the chance to have any sort of real debate on the issue has been ruined really, at least when it comes to the public stuff, but thankfully on the internet we have real neutrality maybe sometime we'll catch some kick ass debate that puts everyone on television to shame.

It happened once, you know we have a 'youth parliament' here in the UK? ( I know, I know, I don't normally think this but to me it's like something Hitler would invent especially the 'youth' part ) they completely put the ordinary parliament to shame when they had a debate because they didn't just aimlessly scream insults and veiled threats at each other like what normally happens.

As a Brit very familiar with Morgan and his ways, and as one who has seen some of Alex Jones' rants before I should have known better than to have sat through that one.  But it does intrigue me that Jones has such a following, as it puzzles me that Bush should ever have become president.  He's a 9/11 truther for f***s sake!  How can anybody with an ounce of sense take him seriously?

Over this side of the pond we rarely get to hear a rational argument put for the right to bear arms so it could potentially have been interesting and informative - but not with those two!  The US pro-gun lobby are painted here as lunatic red-neck conspiracy theorists.  It doesn't help the cause when the one who walks out to represent them just simply reinforces the stereotype!

Look up Operation Northwoods declassified U.S. documents and still tell me that its not at least a possibility that some part of the U.S. govt was involved in 9/11

Not to mention look at all the fascist BS they've been able to push through using 9/11 as the excuse, maybe it just happened conviently for them, but I'd guess when it involves the most powerful people in the world it typically is not just a coincidence.

Patriot Act, Homeland security, TSA, NDAA, Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and on and on. Oh just how well it worked out for them that 9/11 occurred, what a coincidence!

I'll tell you straight I'm simply not going there on any of the 9/11 stuff.  My comment in the previous post says where I am on that.

As for the politicians' consequent use of it to push through their own agendas on surveillance, wars, erosion of civil liberties etc. I'm with you on that one.  But that does not lead me to believing those who gained in that manner caused the conditions from which they took advantage.  So please, just leave the other as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: to highlight my reasons for not responding to the post below.  Draw whatever conclusions you may wish from this.

Did you look up Operation Northwoods? Declassified info that CIA or other agents where going to stage terror attacks inside the United States posing as Cubans to bring about public support for the invasion of Cuba.  It was brought all the way to JFK's desk where he rejected it. Had a different president been sitting it would of likely been implemented.

Do you know the history of the Taliban and USA working together during the 80's in afghanistan? The CIA most likely had worked with Osama bin laden before.

I'm not saying the U.S. govt was involved for sure, I don't know that. But it certainly was possible, anyone who says otherwise does not know history very well, or is lying to themselves because its too hard for them to comprehend.

I think most of what Alex Jones says is pretty much true. He is alarmist at times, and when he has David Icke involved it gets a little derpy. Though, he has a good message for freedom and more people should be following him. I'm a hardcore libertarian and I'm for gun rights. I think the problem with Alex Jones is the yelling and raving. He will get marked by the Main Stream as crazy for what he says, if he acts crazy regardless he has no chance.

The movement for reason and libertarianism needs to have level-headed spokespeople to attract the masses and disprove the notion that they are crazy (as the media portrays). Alex Jones needs to be more like Ron Paul. Ron Paul just laughs at stupidity, Alex gets mad. People don't respond well to angry people.

Alex jones has some shady dealing with Isreal and almost all of his products promoted on his show are Isrealii... and he never talks about the horrors of zionism. There is something wrong there. He is supposably trying to tell the truth, but suppresses any Illegal/globalist/genocidal/racist things that Isreal does. Just try a google search on his wife. They didn't let me on his forum for 2 years, I sent about 10 e-mails asking why. No reply until recently they finally let me make an account. Why?

Someone 'should be like' someone else??!  He is his own person. He makes his own decisions.  He has his own personality.  He's not going to take it from you nor anybody else that he should conform to what you think is a 'better' way.  He is what he is.  Now let's take a look at what that may be...

...and let's not forget he's a 'truther'!

Look at that list a minute.  How on earth do you acknowledge all of that yet still conclude
?????

Please reconsider this.  You say yourself:
In which case where's the reasoning in having that imbecile as your representative?

I know there are some good arguments for defending the right to bear arms.  It's not a topic that particularly interests me maybe partially because it's not really an issue here in the UK.  Yet when, despite my better judgement knowing the two characters involved, I clicked on the link I was ready to listen.  What I got was Jones openly displaying his lunacy whilst boasting his massive following numbers.  What does that say for the quality of thinking of your movement? 

Please do yourselves a massive favour.  If you claim reason is on your side then have someone who can reason as your spokesperson.  If you have any interest at all in winning this battle by argument rather than just by boasting you'll shoot anyone who comes tries to ban your weapons then have someone who is prepared to act reasonably and civilly with someone who thinks differently.

Don't follow him and don't encourage others to follow him.

Regarding the media portraying gun advocates as crazy there may be some element of truth in that but by having the likes of Jones as your representative you really are not making it difficult for them!


... as will all his worshipers.

If it looks like a duck...

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIbtzX1NzAM) makes the point I was trying to make much better  ;D :D

Call me cynical, but I think Alex Jones is paid by someone to make conspiracy theorists look idiotic.

America has a new language evolving. Loud and extreme statements from political viewpoints create new terms that are really meaningless, but imply anecdotal weight to an opinion. It's gone way beyond Orwell's Double-Speak. Most people have no critical thinking skills and are filtered through a system poisoned by fanatic jingoism. The poison is injected by passive media sources and enforced by brainwashing people with talking points. Alex Jones is no different than Rachel Maddow in the way she passionately presents material. These pundits are talking about huge and important issues and are way over their heads when they presume to have history and sciences on their side. Social issues are always way more complex than anyone really grasps.

I like how Max Keiser is sucking up to Jones, not because he believes his nonsense, but Max recognizes the power Jones has over his audience. Keiser pretends to play that game, but he is too intelligent and empathic to take himself seriously when he goes off on his pundit rage-rants. I wish more pundits had his passion and self deprecation.

The thing is I do think conspiracy theorists are idiotic, it is right to keep asking questions but what conspiracy theorists do is form their own conclusions without even looking at facts or circumstantial evidence and of course you have governments taking advantage of that and painting anyone who questions them with the same brush.

+1 for that.  There's a world of difference between a healthy suspicion of government motives with a questioning scepticism and the mental contortionism of the conspiracy theorist.  The give-away traits include the dismissal of anything that contradicts their belief by fantastical explanations.  It's the absence of Occam and failure to change their opinions when presented with rational evidence.

Sorry, I'd misread this the first time, thinking you were saying someone was paying Alex Jones to talk about conspiracy theories in order discredit everything else he says!

But that's not what you were saying at all.  The point is, as Lethn suggests, it doesn't need anybody to make conspiracy theorists look idiotic.  Just observe them in debate with rational people.  They're all over the place.  I recently watched a series of videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmIjDfpTeMc) (well the first few anyway) that illustrates this beautifully.  It's not that there's anything wrong with hearing some plausible-sounding theories and concluding for the time being that things may not be what we thought they were.  But it's another thing to then stick to such a belief, religiously dismissing evidence to the contrary.

I sort of agree with your conspiracy theory about this conspiracy theorist... He is a paid preformer, seems like he over exagerates some things for no reason to look rediculous.

It looks like a lot of things that are considered conspiracy theory and really just "Un-popular opinion" or facts. Generally what we consider to be popular opinion is decided by conglomorate media outlets, that are in bed with government agencies. So pretty much in conclusion. Popular opinion is government sanctioned thought, and conspiracy theory thought is unappoved by the state and deemed crazy.

Media outlets have attached things like aliens to conspiracy theory to make them look crazy, when some things that people say is conspiracy theory is just real world explainations about of our money system or government agencies...

One of the easiest ways to discredit someone is by saying they are crazy, or racist. The government does this to dissidents all the time. It teaches this practice to its citizens to self-weed out people from questioning what they do. This randomly is done to any dissident voices, like Ron Paul, all the time. Many politicians use this tactic to get ahead, it’s called  demagogues [url].

People don’t want to hear that things are bad, that the water is poisoned or that their food is giving them cancer. If someone is willing to tell them things are safe, they will readily believe it. But if someone else says otherwise, they don’t want to know? It doesn’t make sense to me.
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue)

In the 60s and 70s if someone were surrounded by people who believed in crop circles etc. and didn't have access to independent information and debates covering all aspects of such phenomena I suppose it would have been unfair to call them crazy without first taking the time to go through each of their arguments and patiently explaining everything that was problematic about their conclusions that they were made by aliens.  Only then, if rather than reasoning things out properly, going away and thinking about it and being prepared to suspend the belief that all the politicians and the journalists and the scientists and the sheeple were out to con them long enough to come to some reasonable conclusions that they STILL believed that shit, would it be fair to call them crazy.

These days I come across very few conspiracy theorists in real life (a cousin being an exception).  I come across them on the internet it is therefore safe to assume they have the same access to all the resources I do.  Which means someone is either new to all this and rather naiive, is refusing to go see the great refutations, is declining the resources out there to understand the implications of argumentation of open scepticism and of Occam's Razor, or has become or is becoming a true conspiracy theorist who will hold onto their ridiculous notions at the cost of their rationality.  The naiive, if they're prepared to take the hints and do some homework are not beyond redemption but the likes of Jones...