-15 votes

Alex Jones Could Learn A Thing Or Two About Civilized Debate From Ron Paul

(warning: thought provocation area straight ahead)

A lot of people are saying that Alex Jones hurt the liberty movement by the way he acted on the Piers Morgan show when they had their conversation about gun control. I happen to think it was great but a lot of people disagree. They seem to think that confrontations with tyrants like Morgan should be dealt with in a calm and cool manner, and that getting angry is somehow weird or wrong.

As many people know Alex is a big supporter of Ron Paul and has interviewed him many times. Why, then, doesn't Alex look to Ron Paul for inspiration, maintaining his composure and engaging in a more civil discourse like Ron Paul would have done?

See? Ron was able to make his point logically and clearly without upsetting anyone. Loud mouths are for shallow minds, and only polite debate can solve the many problems facing this country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekjnCtR_O0Q

Now, wasn't that nice? No shouting, no interrupting, no condescension or talking over other people. Yes, Ron Paul is and should be an example to all of us that it is never necessary or appropriate to hoot and holler.

Perhaps next time Alex is in a similar scenario he can behave more like a proper gentleman, but it isn't just Alex Jones who needs these lessons: it is all of us. In any setting or scenario. For example:

-Someone breaks into your house at night. Don't yell and scream! Be nice. Offer them a drink. Ask them nicely not to kill you.

-Your congressman or senator suggests a bill requiring caretakers of children to have video cameras in their home. Don't make a fuss! Calmly and quietly explain to them that you think it's kind of a creepy.

-You come to a highway checkpoint and see U.S. military detaining and searching vehicles. Don't get angry! Don't do it! Hush now, hush. That's better. Be good now. Calm down. Only terrorists get angry at checkpoints. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. This hurts them more than it hurts you. And after all it is only for your own protection. Remain calm, citizen.

I'm certain Ron Paul would agree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY_BO-w5qcY

But if that doesn't convince you, here are a few more people who know that getting angry and getting loud will never get anyone's attention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOu-PoT9MDc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE




The Road to Hell is Paved With GOOD Intentions

Piers (the debater) is also Piers (the moderator) at all his debates – which invariably gives Piers (the bad actor) the final advantage on all things debate!

Piers simply "Begs the Question" Ad Infinitum to Ad Nauseam – appealing to the "self evidence" of his circular reasoning that "more bullets means more dead INNOCENT people" rather than "more bullets means more dead CRIMINALS" as his opponents' antithetically point out.

Home invasions (by gangs) and bank heists (by groups) are evidently uncommon where Piers is from and seem outside of his reasoning capacities and awareness. The Police are also unarmed where Piers is from (something else to consider.)

His go-to argument fails a basic smell test.

However, Piers, the famed "Americas Got Talent" judge is also an accomplished bullsh*t artist, topping his rhetorical masterpieces with flare – the Appeal to Extremes: "SHOULD THE GUY BEING MUGGED HAVE SHOT THE PEOPLE MUGGING HIM?" Yes, the mere act of brandishing the weapon wouldn't have sufficed in ending the skirmish non violently. In any universe Piers inhabits the criminals continue to rob you when you pull out a gun. Given such extremes one could effectively argue that if social pariah are also Darwin Award recipients, when confronted with killing devices of varying levels of lethality, thn YES, yes we might be better off without them running amok in the gene pool; along with moral conspirators who defend such criminals instead of their victim(s). That is if one were inclined to make such appeals.

When all else fails Piers simply falls back on a minutia of pre-scripted "Gotcha" Questions (his Alex Trebek gameshow safety blanket shtick) to imply his guest is too incompetent to argue authoritatively on the subject simply because they don't have the answers on cue card like Piers does. He does this with predictable Monty Python-esque pathos while stepping on the replies of his guests when they make points he perhaps doesn't want his audience hearing. This clusterfuck while hilarious makes Piers a dishonest and untrustworthy debate moderator and host. Further, this "Poisoning the Well" strategy should win Piers no brownie points among the audience as the ad hominem appeal is considered the bargain bin of rhetorical appeals – effective only to the casually observing drug user in the audience.

Yes, when threatened by Argumentation-Fu, Piers will effectively drag the guest and argument into the rhetorical gutters, where, most of them seem to finish him off...

The frequency of this rinse wash repeat strategy shows Piers is either incredibly naive with well meaning idealisms or a monomaniacal megalomaniac with an incredible disdain for his audience. After all, Americans don't seem to get why the UK is a gun-free utopia with spikes in stabbing-related crimes. Treating the symptoms instead of the disease is obviously the cure where Piers is from.

Other than that this gun control topic is raising more interesting questions than it cares to answer. Primarily on the effectiveness of such an initiative. Can such a program succeed given the geological; sociological; philosophical differences between the US and UK?

Thoughts, opinions, flames? All welcome.