David L Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 Social media abuzz over Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/us/piers-morgan-guns-debate/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
Libertus Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 Anyone who expected anything different from Alex than this performance clearly hasn't listened to his radio show. He said what he had to say, and in a way that was appealing to his listenership. However, I also agree with the commenter who said they gave him just enough rope to hang himself. You can't say Alex was wrong on his facts, and he did expose Morgan's tactic asking him trivia questions and the whole interviewing style as biased.
Waster Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 Embarrassing. I completely agree with this comment: However, I also agree with the commenter who said they gave him just enough rope to hang himself.
David L Posted January 8, 2013 Author Posted January 8, 2013 Anyone who expected anything different from Alex than this performance clearly hasn't listened to his radio show. He said what he had to say, and in a way that was appealing to his listenership. However, I also agree with the commenter who said they gave him just enough rope to hang himself. You can't say Alex was wrong on his facts, and he did expose Morgan's tactic asking him trivia questions and the whole interviewing style as biased. Thanks for the comment. So he's right on his talking points but he hanged himself. By hanging himself do you mean his reputation and influence is going to suffer substantially as a result of this, even though he's spoken the truth? (By the way, here's the full interview.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y&feature=player_embedded
David L Posted January 8, 2013 Author Posted January 8, 2013 Whoops, sorry about that, HERE'S the full interview (much more potent information given, unfortunately not as many hits on this one as the edited version just posted above ).... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_XZvMwcluEg
Libertus Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 Thanks for the comment. So he's right on his talking points but he hanged himself. By hanging himself do you mean his reputation and influence is going to suffer substantially as a result of this, even though he's spoken the truth? Let me put it this way, I focus on what he says, other people might focus on how he says it. So while I agree with a lot of the actual content of what Alex was saying there, he came across as a little crazy to people who are not at all familiar with his lingo (New World Order, Globalists, etc..) and it's obvious that the producers counted on Alex going on rants and tangents and so they let him do just that, uninterrupted.
sagiquarius Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 A little crazy? I'm very familiar with his style and schtick. I'm accustomed to dealing with his mouth to try and "pick the pepper from the fly shit." AJ was like a rabid animal in constant fear. He answers questions by spewing a deluge of stats and facts and doesn't link them well into an effective argument or concise point. Every opporunity I perceived in this video to make a clear point against more gun laws and enforcement was wasted by his screaming. I haven't listened to his show nor watched his videos for a very long time. This absurdity reenforced my decision. I made an exception because it's rather unusual for him to appear so high in the rankings. I thought perhaps he was acting more mildly or something; nope. At least the man is consistent. You may be correct in that the staff on the show knew he would behave this way and so left him have at it. AJ should know better by now and wasted the opportunity by behaving expected. Some would say it was done on purpose to weaken the position AJ supports. There is nothing he said that I perceived to be helpful or help make the argument. IMO, this was nothing but entertainment and masterbation for his listeners and reenforcement for those that already hold him in low regard. Ug, infotainment.
MrCapitalism Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Oh my gosh I was just going to post about this.I'm going to have to disagree with you guys. I'm by no means an Alex Jones fan, but I thought he absolutely hit it out of the park. That was amazing! Piers totally set Alex up for a fall, and Alex used the air time to totally demolish him. It was hard to watch him fire off a continuous rant, but I'm used to that from him by now, and once I started listenting I realized he was going s trong. Then Piers was all, "aren't you a 9/11 nut?" and Alex wasn't phased in the least... He talked casually about that topic like it was old news, brushed right over it. I personally think Piers Morgan got demolished in that interview. Alex Jones came off extremely prepared.
Connor Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Regardless, that was likely the most entertaining thing to ever happen on CNN. I appreciate his passion and I think he responded appropriately to someone who irresponsibly and mindlessly wants to destroy our way of life.
Connor Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 For those who wish to see a more eloquent and calm destruction of piers Morgan: http://youtube.com/watch?v=avOV6_42xe4
sg12 Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 sagiquarius, do you think the debate that Alex Jones has sparked on gun control and individualism has been helpful to the anarcho-capitalist movement? I am also wondering if we raise children without violence and abuse, how would they react to people like Piers Morgan? Would they get angry as Alex Jones did about the evil in the world and their sources or would they remain calm in the face of sheer evil?
PatrickC Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Totally predictable of AJ of course... Piers has a surprisingly good knack at gauging the feel of the average person, which is why he was a successful newspaper editor of course. I'm guessing he's had a Max Clifford makeover in the past 5 years mind, since boldly taking on the 'opinionated' news media of the US. There is something distinctly likeable about him to the average indoctrinated slave. Battling for the little guy is how many folk feel about him. A charming sophist statist. However, unlike the UK where his particular brand of left of centre politics is much more popular. He's hit a real road block in public opinion over an issue which would be considered as a no brainer in England, over gun regulation. He got such a pasting in his debate with Larry Pratt. It was the first time that I saw Piers visibly shaken by his losing the debate, that he burst into a series of ad hominem attack. He was as embarrassing as AJ frankly and I believe Piers knew he'd made a pratt of himself. AJ was a patsy for saving Piers reputation. Brilliantly planned and executed. Reputation restored!
sg12 Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Larry Pratt did a great job in the 2nd interview last night (1/9/13) in visibly shaking Piers Morgan again. He provided what citizen disarmament proponents claimed they wanted: a calm, rational debate about gun control. Alex Jones may be doing a disservice to the movement, but I haven't seen any evidence for it yet. But I've heard the argument that being a minarchist is detour to anarcho-capitalism (because people are trying to change the system from the inside) and that you can only see the positive externalities (conversions from minarchism to anarchism) and not the amount of people who are deterred by the inconsistencies of minarchism. xelent, do you believe the debate about gun control and individualism has been helpful to the movement? Good parenting is the best way to improve the world. But I would love to know how rational children are going to react to evil. I would guess with revulsion, anger, and contempt without fear. Fear is what is inflicted in those who have been abused and those that still yearn for goodness and overcoming their abuse are those of us who will change the world. Paranoia is a hard thing to overcome. I suspect as much as I like Alex Jones, he has to deal with being scared of evil people. I have a similar problem, which may be why I am defending him. It isn't easy. And it may well be a rational fear as these are people capable of supporting murder. Isn't the anger and contempt of evil people one of the positive outcomes of parenting children without abuse and with love and being nurtured? The main goal being happiness for yourself through virtue.
jb_bak Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Ooch that was tough to watch. Couldn't even finish it. Couldn't stop thinking, why isn't this Steph up there!
Jose Perez Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 [/font] I am also wondering if we raise children without violence and abuse, how would they react to people like Piers Morgan? Would they get angry as Alex Jones did about the evil in the world and their sources or would they remain calm in the face of sheer evil? They would go to that debate and **debate**, much like Larry Pratt did in the other exchange..
PatrickC Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 xelent, do you believe the debate about gun control and individualism has been helpful to the movement? By movement I guess you mean the liberty one... I have no idea really.. However, I do think AJ often reacts to these people like a frightened child. Facing a sadist like Piers no doubt triggers that reaction in him. Larry Pratt did a great job in the 2nd interview last night (1/9/13) in visibly shaking Piers Morgan again. He provided what citizen disarmament proponents claimed they wanted: a calm, rational debate about gun control. Interesting that Piers did a second interview with Larry. I've yet to see that myself. Some might call that being a glutton for punishment. My point was that the gun debate for Piers is a point of pride. If I may, this debate is not about guns for Piers. As he was so eloquently ponied by Larry that he needed some way to save face and reputation, whilst still pretending that he was all for listening to his opponents. I'm guessing that the AJ interview will be seen more often than the Larry ones. Certainly the MSM has been very critical/mocking about AJ's delivery. By comparison very little has been said of the Larry interviews. Some might say of course they would be more critical of AJ. But really this is about Piers manipulating a more favourable outcome for himself. Piers is using all the guile, deflection and cleverness of a successful politician. It's not about truth or guns, it's about power and influence. Piers is your archetype narcissist. In this regard I have some sympathy for AJ, since for him (unlike Piers) this is a very important issue.
Connor Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 xelent, do you believe the debate about gun control and individualism has been helpful to the movement? By movement I guess you mean the liberty one... I have no idea really.. However, I do think AJ often reacts to these people like a frightened child. Facing a sadist like Piers no doubt triggers that reaction in him. Do you not think that the fear is justified? It's empirically true that if the United States keeps on the same path it will descend to the living standards of a third world country. I think Alex does have a positive effect, though his solutions may be misguided, on the liberty movement because he identifies real, tangible threats to the destruction of civilization in contrast to the obfuscations portrayed in mass media.
endostate Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Ben Swann REALITY CHECK for Piers Morgan Gun Stats (3:42)[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI:350:300] From the video: In 2011 the US had 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people.In 2011 the UK had 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
Connor Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Just watched the second larry pratt interview. Piers Morgan actually called someone else a sensationalist. The irony...it burns
PatrickC Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Do you not think that the fear is justified? It's empirically true that if the United States keeps on the same path it will descend to the living standards of a third world country. I think Alex does have a positive effect, though his solutions may be misguided, on the liberty movement because he identifies real, tangible threats to the destruction of civilization in contrast to the obfuscations portrayed in mass media. I certainly have more sympathy with AJ than I do Piers.. But I think it's reasonable to assume that AJ is seen as a nutjob by the majority. Some of that will be to do with their own ignorance of the issues, as much as it has to do with AJ's behaviour. It's not a moral issue, but ranting at people is never helpful. Within a culture where appearences are often seen as more important than content, a good argument can be lost on other people when delivered in this manner. Piers is only to aware of this, since he did as much himself when he interviewed Larry.
sg12 Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 jb_bak, I'm guessing you may already know why Stef isn't up there. Most people don't want a rational debate and don't want to watch the Larry Pratt interviews. They are lying to themselves about wanting a calm rational debate, or Stef would be on stage debating as he is the philosopher of our time, and people would want to watch the Larry Pratt interviews (explains xelent's idea that more people will watch Alex Jones than Larry Pratt). Alex Jones makes them uncomfortable because these people have repressed their anger as children. They have an emotional attachment to being helpless in order to forgive their parents. So they lash out how irrational he is because he is emotional and passionate about these life and death issues. It is amazing how much courage and vulnerability that takes. To be watched by millions of people knowing that you will be attacked by the media and painted as crazy, which could be why it isn't good for the liberty movement. But if people have emotional attachments, why not break them down? Wouldn't it help people to make them anxious and uncomfortable so they will change their view? Larry Pratt Interview with Piers Morgan on CNN 1/9/13: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inuYGQJ5djI Crime Stats: (which you guys already know)
PatrickC Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Larry Pratt Interview with Piers Morgan on CNN 1/9/13: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inuYGQJ5djI Thanks for the link. Fascinating, as Larry suggested, Piers was remarkably more calm in this interview (for good reason of course).. He used a skewed statistic to try and trip Larry on. btw the only criticism that he could find of course, knowing full well that his audience are unlikely to check Larry's data. The rest was just an attempt to frame Larry as a callous uncaring individual. It was also interesting that he used the clip of AJ which will be considered his nuttiest moment. He also brought on family of some of the victims of the cinema shootings who were clearly in favour of Piers views on guns. This is Piers at his best of course, using well oiled emotional pleas. This show was all about saving Piers (unconscious) fragile opinion of himself. A narcissist, I rest my case..
pretzelogik Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 The Sandy Hook Media Event is obviously serving its purpose of directing attention to debates about guns, mental health, security in schools and various and sundry conspiracies. What is often missing from these debates is due diligence on the part of anyone that takes the bait that is placed before them by the media machine. The question to be asked is: "Is the assumption that the media outlets are observing, documenting and reporting events, as opposed to creating them from a pre-determined script, a valid one?" I have pointed out on other threads and will mention it here, the tag line for News Corporation is: "Creating and distributing top-quality news, sports and entertainment around the world." (Emphasis added.) Investigation trumps acceptance at face value. Before a debates are conjured by virtue of any of these media driven confabulations, perhaps we should examine the evidence used to create these stories to determine whether it stands up to scrutiny.
Stefan Molyneux Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 It's also interesting that the media never talk about the parents of shooters, except in this case, because the mother was a homeschooler, and a survivalist...[] Also, why not have Dr Thomas Sowell on to talk about gun control? Why give full media exposure to Alex Jones? Nothing the media does is accidental.
sg12 Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 Stef, do you think that the media achieved their goal to discredit the liberty movement?
Nathan Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 It's also interesting that the media never talk about the parents of shooters, except in this case, because the mother was a homeschooler, and a survivalist.../emoticons/emotion-6.gif Also, why not have Dr Thomas Sowell on to talk about gun control? Why give full media exposure to Alex Jones? Nothing the media does is accidental. Bingo
David L Posted January 10, 2013 Author Posted January 10, 2013 Eric Holder: Gun Owners Should "Cower" in Shame Like Smokers http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2013/01/10/eric-holder-gun-owners-should-cower-shame-smokers#ixzz2HbmeTEJU Wow, a government that cowers in shame? Yeah I think that would be really a hip idea!
nathanm Posted January 10, 2013 Posted January 10, 2013 One of the few times where deploying Operation Calm British Person really didn't seem to work as well as it usually does. About all I got from Morgan is that there's less gun deaths in Britain than the US and then there was a lot of "Alex… Alex… Alex… Alex… Alex…"
PatrickC Posted January 11, 2013 Posted January 11, 2013 Great discussion with Brett from Schoolsucks regarding this topic that I thought people might be interested in. http://schoolsucksproject.com/187-logic-saves-lives-part-9-alex-jones-vs-piers-morgan/
sagiquarius Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 This 14min interview was much better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs Ben made the argument much better and allowed Piers to clearly display his lack of integrity. Piers keeps making it about the AR15; once folks like him have his way on that weapon he'll want more once he sees that banning assualt weapons won't solve the "problem."
pretzelogik Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 Seriously, why should we accept any of these stories from the mainstream media at face value? The question isn't how well side A presented by the MSM performed against side B presented by the MSM, but whether the event they are going on about happened at all. There is little if any credible evidence that this event even took place. If we spent half the time researching the actual facts and evidence as we do getting caught up in the debate that we are being directed to getting caught up in, we would learn to simply ignore the machine.
sagiquarius Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 Seriously, why should we accept any of these stories from the mainstream media at face value? The question isn't how well side A presented by the MSM performed against side B presented by the MSM, but whether the event they are going on about happened at all. There is little if any credible evidence that this event even took place. If we spent half the time researching the actual facts and evidence as we do getting caught up in the debate that we are being directed to getting caught up in, we would learn to simply ignore the machine. To which which event do you refer? Sandy Hook? Batman shooting? Any other shooting even that featured the AR-15 weapon? I'm inferring that you're premise is that said event didn't happen. Is there credible evidence that said event happened or isn't there? What do you find to be "credible" evidence? Clearly, I think many have demonstrated an ability to hold a temporary discussion regarding a debate between person A and B whilst still holding to the premise that society is fucked up and it is for that reason (and many others) that this forum exists. It's not like this little thing was all that distracting, if at all.
pretzelogik Posted January 12, 2013 Posted January 12, 2013 Well, I am doing chores with an FM transmitter listening to the Piers Morgan gun debates and engaging in the ultimate hypocrisy. (Guilty pleasure, so far Ted Nugent is my favorite!) So, the debate is worth listening to from the perspective of analyzing the logical fallacies on both sides, and noting the glaring omission of state violence or the threat thereof. As far as evidence of these events goes, what we have are stories of completely implausible scenarios, lists of names, backstopped by manipulated photos, transparently scripted interviews of survivors of the supposed victims who have a preternatural disposition towards happy, sunny grief, featuring talking points about gun legislation, "shooters" and AR15s, and a multitude of conflicting reports about what happened. Add to that recycled videos of drills, pictures of the locations that don't make any sense, implausible interviews with law enforcement and coroners, etc. Not very compelling as far as facts go. What we don't have are photos of the crime scene (not necessarily morbid, I understand the sensitivity issue, but you can see someone getting their head shot off nearly every second of the day, side issue), but blasted out doors, shell casings, interior shots of the school, pictures of the cars that were supposedly shot up. A photo of a single bullet hole in the wall would be something. I have yet to see any of the physical items that might be presented in a court case. Imagine trying to collect insurance on a class action suit with videos of the deceased, interviews with survivors and photos and videos of funerals as evidence. I have yet to see any credible evidence that the villain is even a real person and not a created entity. Why don't we have a drivers license photo? The media rolls out an event, guests are lined up on various talk shows and the debate commences on the merits of gun control. So, from my perspective, the bigger issue is: "Why do we accept the news as real?" Newscorp brags about "creating news". I take that literally. Like 9/11, I see this as a watershed issue, wherein the media is not objective, but complicit in the creation of the story.
Recommended Posts