Remember that the question was asking him what his thoughts were on gay marriage. His answer is that gay marriage is a conspiracy by a secret cabal of pedophiles hellbent on fucking your children. To any sane person, pedophilia shouldn't ever come up in response to that question, however, this is how Alex Jones works. He is trying to create associations. He is saying that there is a connection here. He is trying to connect homosexuality with things such as pedophilia, globalism and the devil and it isn't because he thinks all of these things are good.

That said, the reason I'm not going into more detail is because I also know how you work. I'm wrapping up this conversation and leaving because I do not believe you are capable of anything resembling discussion.

how is it free speech when speech is suppressed?

would you be ok with catholics shutting down speaking engagements on research about the origins of the universe which contradict their worldview of earth being 6000 years old?

Like I said before freedom of speech only protects you from violence and the government not everyone else's speech. Also no amount of hypothetical Catholic protestors would prevent that information from eventually getting out. They could easily use a private venue where the have the legal right to remove all protestors that enter the event or simply post the information on the internet. 

"His answer is that gay marriage is a conspiracy by a secret cabal of pedophiles hellbent on fucking your children. "

that's not true read it again

he identifies situations where pedophiles have been caught, do you disagree with that?

and he claims that within these situations there is a movement to gain greater control, do you disagree with that?

"To any sane person, pedophilia shouldn't ever come up in response to that question"

really? you don't think pedophilia can be correlated to someone trying to speak about the mechanics of sex with children of the age of 5? 

maybe since i'm missing the wider context from your excerpt i missed something

i asked about this before and you haven't addressed this and to me its an important point to clarify

"He is trying to create associations. He is saying that there is a connection here."

it seems like essentially you are concluding his intent for him since you cannot explicitly do it from what he's actually said

"He is trying to connect homosexuality with things such as pedophilia, globalism and the devil"

first off i'd like to say that in the previous comment you called people who fuck cars out as sexual deviants which to me is just as bigoted a stance to take but regardless this is your conclusion, which is ok, its fine to have your own interpretations of things but you can't actually show me an explicit connection to what he's actually said can you?

"I do not believe you are capable of anything resembling discussion."

and this translates to... "well i can't actually show you evidence for my claim but you should go along with it anyway because i'm right"

sorry man that does not fly with me, i expect that if someone makes an assertion that they have to have something of substance to back that assertion

"Also no amount of hypothetical Catholic protestors would prevent that information from eventually getting out. "

lets say we lived in an era where they had the power to suppress that information as we have before for centuries

would you apply these principles consistently... i'm pretty you would not

I know I said I was done, but I just want to say one more thing, because you demonstrated it so perfectly here. See, what Alex Jones largely does is draw lines between things. Often it isn't explicit, meaning that he may simply do it by mentioning things in close proximity, but I'd say that it is one of the main tactics that he uses.

On the other hand, you seem to do just about the opposite. Instead of providing relationships by contextualizing things together, you instead remove context. You take a tiny snippet of something and respond to it in a vacuum, as if the rest of what was said has no relation to that snippet. In my opinion, that seems to be what you are doing here. You have removed the part where I mentioned what the question was and took this tiny snippet in a vacuum. I say that pedophilia shouldn't ever come up in response to that question. If you were to acknowledge context, you would have to see that the question I was speaking of was the question "what do you think of gay marriage" (as I've said twice now) and acknowledge that no, pedophilia shouldn't be mentioned as a response. However, you omit that. Instead, you take only what was stated in this tiny snippet and say that pedophilia can be correlated to people explaining sex to children, but that wasn't the question. That has no real relevance here because it is something that Jones brought into the conversation in order to make the connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, however, if you decontextualize my statement enough, you can remove the context of what question is being discussed and fill it in with whatever is convenient for your (non)point.

Lets look at another one:

""I mean, look at all the pedophile scandals. I mean, it's pedophile scandals in the BBC, in the government, in the churches."

he's right about this

jimmy saville ring a bell? joe paterno? the catholic scandals?"

By removing the context here, you have twisted what is being discussed. I never took issue with the fact that pedophile scandals exist, but by dragging this quote out and discussing it in the absence of context, you can acknowledge it without its relation to the question at large. You can get around the pesky bits in which Alex Jones is using this as evidence that the government is pushing gay marriage in order to push pedophilia. By not addressing this as a part of a whole, you can eliminate the bits which make it controversial and act like I am an idiot for not being able to understand the obvious, but there is really nothing more here than sleight of hand and a very short memory.

"I say that pedophilia shouldn't ever come up in response to that question. If you were to acknowledge context, you would have to see that the question I was speaking of was the question "what do you think of gay marriage""

you didn't provide the full context ironically, what you posted was his response and yes his response seemed fair to me, can you post the full conversation? i'd assume it was a video correct?

because if you are going to talk about context the whole conversation at least before his reply is relevant

"you take only what was stated in this tiny snippet and say that pedophilia can be correlated to people explaining sex to children, but that wasn't the question."

sure it wasn't the question but people ramble away from the original point of a question all the time, its pretty disingenuous to take an instance of someone doing that and pretend that a firm conclusion can be made based on that 

and beyond that as i have said you have not provided the full context, did jones and the interviewer bring up pedophilia before hand? what exactly were they discussing beyond gay marriage? as you said yourself all of this relevant right?

"That has no real relevance here because it is something that Jones brought into the conversation in order to make the connection between pedophilia and homosexuality"

which is an assertion that you cannot prove but ok

"You can get around the pesky bits in which Alex Jones is using this as evidence that the government is pushing gay marriage in order to push pedophilia"

he points out that the government has pushed gay marriage which is a good thing and that they have pushed for policies that can be related to pedophilia, he didn't make the connection between the two of them you did