Yes, crypto is serious stuff. Yes, people should be warned about insecure security products. No, you don't have to be a jerk while doing that. See for example jdiez17's reply for what I think would be an effective and persuasive approach.
No, I didn't. I called a hypothetical and clearly homicidal person who I doubt was ever participating in this thread insane.
1. You compared the situation A to a hypothetical situation B, claiming it to be equivalent or comparable - A <=> B
2. You claim that someone describing the hypothetical situation as an overreacting description of the hypothetical situation - Describe (P, O (B)) => Insane (P)
3. By extension you imply that the person considering the first situation overreacting is also insane - Describe (P, O (A)) => I (P)
(A <=> B, Describe (P, O (B)) => Insane (P))
=> (Describe (P, O (A)) => Insane (P)
Personally I find that using the "understanding" method works much better than the "sootheing" method i.e.
"I understand why you think this way - <explanation of your understanding of the thought process of the other person> but you're wrong because <explanation where thought process goes wrong>"
For the record, the final line of my comment was intended to mean, basically, "If you don't think airplanes built my amateurs are dangerous, then we're not going to get anywhere, because I would consider you insane."
Whatever else you got out of it is your own invention.