Alex Jones does real issues (gun rights and anti-depressant drugs) a dis-service

[foggyb]

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.

[1714814343]

1714814343

[1714814343]

1714814343

[1714814343]

1714814343

[myrkul]

I don't really know Piers Morgan, but he's made of ice.

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.

That was a great example of people (in this case the gun advocates) wilfully mixing up -- or misunderstanding -- statistical correlation versus causation when it suits them.

[sarc]Guns get banned in a certain area and crime rates get worse? OMG! Obviously the ban mysteriously caused more crime to occur. Remember -- governments and all their employees are complete and utter criminals -- you must never give them any credit whatsoever. So they correctly identified a worsening trend or predicted a crime-wave?... Well duh: self-fulfilling prophecy! More laws = more crime.[/sarc]

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.

[myrkul]

I don't really know Piers Morgan, but he's made of ice.

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.

That was a great example of people (in this case the gun advocates) wilfully mixing up -- or misunderstanding -- statistical correlation versus causation when it suits them.

[sarc]Guns get banned in a certain area and crime rates get worse? OMG! Obviously the ban mysteriously caused more crime to occur. Remember -- governments and all their employees are complete and utter criminals -- you must never give them any credit whatsoever. So they correctly identified a worsening trend or predicted a crime-wave?... Well duh: self-fulfilling prophecy! More laws = more crime.[/sarc]

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.

Er... Actually it's not. It's just more correlation. As the relatively sane "rest of the world" would say: only in America!

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?

[constitution]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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

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

[Dalkore]

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.

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.

[Lethn]

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.

[thoughtfan]

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!

[Timep34]

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!

[thoughtfan]

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.

[Timep34]

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.

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.

[maunderingcabal]

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?

[thoughtfan]

Alex Jones needs to be more like Ron Paul.

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...

He is alarmist at times..
[he is] yelling and raving..
Alex gets mad. People don't respond well to angry people...
He [is a follower of] David Icke...

...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

...more people should be following him.

??

Please reconsider this.  You say yourself:

The movement for reason and libertarianism needs to have level-headed spokespeople...

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!

He will get marked ... as crazy  ... if he acts crazy.

... as will all his worshipers.

If it looks like a duck...

[thoughtfan]

This video makes the point I was trying to make much better 

[barbarousrelic]

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

[cbeast]

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.

[Lethn]

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

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.

[thoughtfan]

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.

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

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 (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.

[maunderingcabal]

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

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...

[maunderingcabal]

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.

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

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 (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.

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.