What's up with Alex Jones/Bill Hicks?

[euklyd]

27 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

This depends on what you consider a conspiracy theory - I've been written off as paranoid simply for listening to the Andrew Klavan and Ben Shapiro Shows. Something I've heard people throw the 'conspiracy theory' label onto so they can blow people off as nutjobs that I believe is that Obama intentionally was the worst President we've ever had in an attempt to sell us to the Muslims(please please PLEASE do not even attempt to talk to me about whether he was the worst President we've ever had, I will ignore whoever does so). Also, while I don't believe all school shootings were falsified, I very much lean towards the theory that at least some if not all of the major school shootings were orchestrated by our own government in an attempt to get us to push Gun Control for them so they don't have to do as much work. I also take issue with the news media acting as though we've had all kinds of these deadly shootings when several of the shootings they're claiming happened were hardly as horrible as the handful of actually deadly shootings we've had, such as one where a guy used a gun to kill himself in his car in a school parking lot - technically a school shooting, yes, and horrible, yes, but is it in the same league as psychopaths(or brainwashed minions depending on which camp you subscribe to) walking into a school and just gunning down whoever got in their line of sight, no matter their age? Anyways, the mainstream media's actions regarding school shootings I find suspicious, and though I'm not the only one who believes they're only pushing their own agenda and not actually recording the pure facts like they're SUPPOSED to do, I find a surprising number of people who seem to think the average TV News Station is completely trustworthy.

I definitely think you'll enjoy Alex Jones.

[Johann]

37 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

This depends on what you consider a conspiracy theory - I've been written off as paranoid simply for listening to the Andrew Klavan and Ben Shapiro Shows. Something I've heard people throw the 'conspiracy theory' label onto so they can blow people off as nutjobs that I believe is that Obama intentionally was the worst President we've ever had in an attempt to sell us to the Muslims(please please PLEASE do not even attempt to talk to me about whether he was the worst President we've ever had, I will ignore whoever does so). Also, while I don't believe all school shootings were falsified, I very much lean towards the theory that at least some if not all of the major school shootings were orchestrated by our own government in an attempt to get us to push Gun Control for them so they don't have to do as much work. I also take issue with the news media acting as though we've had all kinds of these deadly shootings when several of the shootings they're claiming happened were hardly as horrible as the handful of actually deadly shootings we've had, such as one where a guy used a gun to kill himself in his car in a school parking lot - technically a school shooting, yes, and horrible, yes, but is it in the same league as psychopaths(or brainwashed minions depending on which camp you subscribe to) walking into a school and just gunning down whoever got in their line of sight, no matter their age? Anyways, the mainstream media's actions regarding school shootings I find suspicious, and though I'm not the only one who believes they're only pushing their own agenda and not actually recording the pure facts like they're SUPPOSED to do, I find a surprising number of people who seem to think the average TV News Station is completely trustworthy.

Wow, that's uh, quite a read. Yes, the shit you describe falls squarely into conspiracy theorist nutjob territory. Should I explain why, or will you not listen?

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

This depends on what you consider a conspiracy theory - I've been written off as paranoid simply for listening to the Andrew Klavan and Ben Shapiro Shows. Something I've heard people throw the 'conspiracy theory' label onto so they can blow people off as nutjobs that I believe is that Obama intentionally was the worst President we've ever had in an attempt to sell us to the Muslims(please please PLEASE do not even attempt to talk to me about whether he was the worst President we've ever had, I will ignore whoever does so). Also, while I don't believe all school shootings were falsified, I very much lean towards the theory that at least some if not all of the major school shootings were orchestrated by our own government in an attempt to get us to push Gun Control for them so they don't have to do as much work. I also take issue with the news media acting as though we've had all kinds of these deadly shootings when several of the shootings they're claiming happened were hardly as horrible as the handful of actually deadly shootings we've had, such as one where a guy used a gun to kill himself in his car in a school parking lot - technically a school shooting, yes, and horrible, yes, but is it in the same league as psychopaths(or brainwashed minions depending on which camp you subscribe to) walking into a school and just gunning down whoever got in their line of sight, no matter their age? Anyways, the mainstream media's actions regarding school shootings I find suspicious, and though I'm not the only one who believes they're only pushing their own agenda and not actually recording the pure facts like they're SUPPOSED to do, I find a surprising number of people who seem to think the average TV News Station is completely trustworthy.

First.  Sentences and paragraphs.  I'm glad you can read what you wrote, but I'm having problems with it.

Second, which shootings are supposedly falsified?  Source?

Third, quantify "surprising number of people" and "average TV news station", preferably with a source.

[Shoblongoo]

4 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

 Obama intentionally was the worst President we've ever had in an attempt to sell us to the Muslims

Some if not all of the major school shootings were orchestrated by our own government in an attempt to get us to push Gun Control for them so they don't have to do as much work. 

...well that's not full-on the homosexuals are putting chemicals in the water to turn our children gay, but that is in the ballpark of Alex Jones territory.

Not gonna bludgeon you over the head for it here...but goodness...

I hope you get better at identifying reliable sources and critically assessing information as you get older.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

4 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

Also, while I don't believe all school shootings were falsified, I very much lean towards the theory that at least some if not all of the major school shootings were orchestrated by our own government in an attempt to get us to push Gun Control for them so they don't have to do as much work.

Then where's the gun control?

I mean, little kids died at Sandy Hook, Alex Jones screamed about how this was a ploy for Obama to come take the guns away, and nothing happened. They must be pretty poor at getting what they want if that's the case.

The most you could say is that the Parkland shooting has giving the issue the most drive as it has in quite some time - but even then I doubt things will get done with all the gun fetishists present in the US.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

To return to the OP's initial query.

On 4/17/2018 at 10:06 PM, AlmondJuice said:

The meme man himself, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. I saw an article talking about how there were parents suing him for claiming that the Sandy Hook shooting was fake. It's probably a publicity stunt, and I want to tread as lightly as possible here, but that got me thinking...

My legal opinion is that the defamation suit against Jones has merit and is more than a mere publicity stunt--the plaintiff's have legitimate grounds to claim that they have been tortiously  wronged by the man and institute civil action against him--but it is by no means a slam dunk, and its going to be a tricky case to litigate.  There are four (4) elements to a defamation claim:

1) Defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the Plaintiff
2) The Statements were unprivileged and publicized to a third party 
3) The publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication
4) The plaintiff has suffered damages as a result 

Elements 1 through 3 are satisfied by the facts of the case presented.

1) Alex Jones made false and defamatory statements when he stated that the parents were crisis actors, and were not actually mourning the deaths of their children. 
2) The statements were publicized on a nationally syndicated radio program and were not subject to any special privilege 
3) More than negligent; Jones acted with purposeful disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements published. Specifically, Jones has admitted in prior court proceedings (i.e. in his divorce litigation and child custody disputes) that he knew or believed the statements to be false at the time of publication. 

...Element 4 is where this gets spotty...

What are the damages???

Traditionally in a defamation case, you have to show that you actually suffered reputational damages as a result of the publication of the false statement--that as a result of same you have been ostracized and shunned within your community, been unjustly targeted by law enforcement or hauled into court, lost the consortium of friends and family members, lost prospective economic advantage from being cast in a negative light before prospective customers, clients, or employers, etc.       

The pleadings do not allege that the parents have suffered any such damages within their community--presumably everyone in their actual town of Sandy Hook knows the truth of the matter and thinks no less of them because of the comments Jones has made and regards Alex Jones as a lunatic--so there's no traditional defamation damages here.

What the parents allege in the alternative is that they've been defamed at a national rather than local level. That they've received death threats from Jones' listeners. And that Jones comments have been an ongoing source of anxiety, fear, humiliation, and extreme emotional distress.

...okay...thats something...

The case has value because there's a high profile defendant and the underlying conduct alleged (i.e. defaming the parents of dead children in their time of mourning on a national radio program) is particularly outrageous.

But anytime theres no hard economic damages and the only thing you can plead are amorphous allegations of emotional distress, there's room for a defense attorney to give you the run-around. And there's a bunch of legwork the Plaintiff's are going to have to do before they can pin down a settlement value or take the case to trial.

Alex Jones fuckery aside, its an interesting legal case.  
 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[SoulWeaver]

13 hours ago, Johann said:

Wow, that's uh, quite a read. Yes, the shit you describe falls squarely into conspiracy theorist nutjob territory. Should I explain why, or will you not listen?

Probably not a great plan, I don't wanna derail the thread more than I already have. Hopefully you guys get why I avoid Serious Discussion as much as I can, though.

11 hours ago, eclipse said:

Which shootings are supposedly falsified?  Source?

Quantify "surprising number of people" and "average TV news station", preferably with a source.

I was quoting the implication people are putting up that Alex Jones is supposedly saying the shootings were staged. I haven't heard the man myself and can't pull source.

Everyone I've spoken to about fake news in my ward, numbering at least twenty, around sixteen people from my work who have also engaged me in this discussion, at least ten people from the game store I play Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and Cipher at each week, again mostly from them asking me if I heard the news. Average TV News station refers to CNN, Fox News, etc., and I should clarify that by completely trustworthy I mean they believe those stations to be reporting the news objectively without their own bias coming into play at all, which is a very difficult thing to pull off if you're not very careful, and I highly doubt the current mainstream media to be the sort to be so careful. Also sorry about the paragraphs, that's how most of my family writes so I tend to forget it gives some people nightmares.

10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...well that's not full-on the homosexuals are putting chemicals in the water to turn our children gay, but that is in the ballpark of Alex Jones territory.

Not gonna bludgeon you over the head for it here...but goodness...

I hope you get better at identifying reliable sources and critically assessing information as you get older.

I appreciate your willingness to just let it go. However, I would like to point out that the third statement could be seen as exactly what you're saying you won't do. I'm not that short a fuse, but it could be said in a way that doesn't insult both my age(admittedly a mere 21) and beliefs.

9 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Then where's the gun control?

I mean, little kids died at Sandy Hook, Alex Jones screamed about how this was a ploy for Obama to come take the guns away, and nothing happened. They must be pretty poor at getting what they want if that's the case.

The most you could say is that the Parkland shooting has giving the issue the most drive as it has in quite some time - but even then I doubt things will get done with all the gun fetishists present in the US.

Those 'gun fetishists' are exactly the reason we don't have gun control, because we realize it's not actually going to fix the root problem and the risk outweighs the reward for us, hence why we've been fighting the gun control so fiercely.

16 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

EDIT: I got a bit heated. I'll respond in a moment.

I assume you've read my later posts at this point, so you should have an idea where I stand on such things as what you mentioned. I won't respond to most of your post, in part because I feel I've done enough damage to this thread, but I will say from what I've seen of you I find, to put it nicely, we're destined to disagree on quite a lot of things, such as how to speak to people we don't take seriously for the context, and sometimes I let my personal issues with people poke through on here though I try not to, so my apologies for making it personal. I would also like to say I have no issues with people responding to me in a heated manner, so while I thank you for your politeness, if stuff slips out in anger at me I don't really mind.

This all being said, I do apologize for derailing the thread as much as I have. You are of course welcome to reply to this, but chances are I won't be responding to such replies in the interest of both keeping the conversation on-topic and staying civil myself.

[Tryhard]

1 minute ago, SoulWeaver said:

Those 'gun fetishists' are exactly the reason we don't have gun control, because we realize it's not actually going to fix the root problem and the risk outweighs the reward for us, hence why we've been fighting the gun control so fiercely.

Alright, I'll live in my country with 4x less of the homicide rate and where guns are banned then. :)

Gun fetishists isn't all gun owners, by the way. Really though, the people who talk about guns the most scare the shit out of me, because they sound unstable. Speaking of which...

 

[SoulWeaver]

Just now, Tryhard said:

Alright, I'll live in my country with 4x less of the homicide rate and where guns are banned then. :)

Gun fetishists isn't all gun owners, by the way. Really though, the people who talk about guns the most scare the shit out of me, because they sound unstable. Speaking of which...

I'm sure this is a very helpful informative video. Unfortunately, I share a computer with the rest of my family, and my parents still haven't gotten around to removing the old Parental Controls from my account(3 FREAKING YEARS LATER), meaning that almost any video is blocked - I can't even see the video, it's just a big blank space on the page, like you hit Enter 13 times or something. Would you mind just putting a link up for me?

[Shoblongoo]

21 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

I appreciate your willingness to just let it go. However, I would like to point out that the third statement could be seen as exactly what you're saying you won't do. I'm not that short a fuse, but it could be said in a way that doesn't insult both my age(admittedly a mere 21) and beliefs.

That is my polite way of inviting you to consider engagement with alternative points of view; you'll be better for it.

For context. I was an arch-conservative and shared many of your beliefs when I was in high school. Because my dad was an arch-conservative and that's how he raised me; I grew up listening to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. As far as I was concerned, those were the credible sources of information and everyone in the "mainstream" was just blindly following group-think.

It wasn't until I sought out dialogues with persons from different backgrounds and with opposing ideas that I gained the perspective to look critically at what I had been raised to believe, and reevaluate whether I really believed this.  

So I'm not preaching here anything that I haven't practiced in my own life.

Bludgeoning you over the head with it would be setting forth at length all the reasons why the conspiracy theories themselves are bullshit, and how an informed person listening to purveyors of the conspiracy theories should be able to detect that they are being bullshitted.

...but I respect that this is a conversation you don't want to have atm, so I'll back off there...

If ever you want to hear it, seek me out. I promise--I don't bite.  

Edited April 19, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Tryhard]

15 minutes ago, SoulWeaver said:

I'm sure this is a very helpful informative video. Unfortunately, I share a computer with the rest of my family, and my parents still haven't gotten around to removing the old Parental Controls from my account(3 FREAKING YEARS LATER), meaning that almost any video is blocked - I can't even see the video, it's just a big blank space on the page, like you hit Enter 13 times or something. Would you mind just putting a link up for me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_elgBgbMSk

It's nothing that exciting, just about the person in question here. The full interview is here for the full context... if its even that helpful, as Alex just flies into arguments at will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg

Edited April 19, 2018 by Tryhard

[SoulWeaver]

1 minute ago, Tryhard said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_elgBgbMSk

It's nothing that exciting, just about the person in question here. The full interview is here for the full context... if its even that helpful, and Alex just flies into arguments at will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg

Thank you sir, I'll be sure to take a look at it so I at least have a better understanding of what the issue is.

12 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

If ever you want to hear it, seek me out. I promise--I don't bite.  

I will keep that in mind, thank you as well.

[Lord Raven]

http://wshu.org/post/alex-jones-backtracking-now-says-sandy-hook-shooting-did-happen#stream/0

Very interesting development here. I don't know if he even has personal lawyers.

[Shoblongoo]

12 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

http://wshu.org/post/alex-jones-backtracking-now-says-sandy-hook-shooting-did-happen#stream/0

Very interesting development here. I don't know if he even has personal lawyers.

...see...that doesn't help him at this point.

If anything that works against him in a defamation suit. Because it shows actual knowledge of the falsity of his statements. Or at the very least that he could have ascertained their falsity with due diligence and reasonable inquiry, and made the comments without concern for their truth or falsity. That's an admission to Element #3 of the defamation claim. (in the absence of such an admission, a cognizable defense to charges of defamation would have been that he reasonably believed his statements to be true)

If a lawyer's telling him to say that, he's getting bad counsel. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Lord Raven]

Oh yeah I posted that just to make clear that this is a bad idea. Clearly his personal lawyer is either incompetent, playing 4D chess (lol), or non existent.

[SuperIb]

12 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

 the homosexuals are putting chemicals in the water to turn our children gay

lmao I remember this. What a time to be alive, that was.

As far as my opinion on Alex Jones... he genuinely worries me. As people in the thread have already made clear, he's a conspiracy-theorist nut-job who simply spouts extremist views with inconsistency, and can be rather wishy-washy at times. It always surprises me that fairly large amounts of people can find it in themselves to believe the crap he says considering how they can be far-fetched or outright false. But then again, I should probably remove my mindset of thinking that people in-general are smart enough not to base the entirety of their beliefs off of a single radio talk show host. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Johann]

2 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

Probably not a great plan, I don't wanna derail the thread more than I already have. Hopefully you guys get why I avoid Serious Discussion as much as I can, though.

I dunno, I think it's fine to discuss here. I mean, a thread on Alex Jones inevitably will include discussion about conspiracy theories and the media. We can break it down into 3 different theories:

• Obama deliberately tried to "sell us to the Muslims"-- I don't really understand what you're even implying here, so I'd hope you will elaborate. Disregarding your opinion about Obama as the "worst president", because that's your opinion and you've asked not to get into that, but what do you mean by selling us to the Muslims? This reads as though you're collectively lumping all Muslim people into a (negative) category, and that your knowledge of Muslim people mostly comes from hard anti-Muslim sources.
• Some school shootings being orchestrated by the government-- You have to understand how utterly incompetent the government is at handling just about anything. For the most part, the government operates with about the same efficiency and mastery as your high school's administration office. The government loses a ridiculous amounts of money just because of ineptitude, and its employees can barely keep anything a secret, especially if it's a big deal. Suggesting they could pull off such an operation would be extremely overestimating their ability. You also suggest that the reason they do so is to push gun control, yet legislators are the ones holding it back, many of which are directly siding with (and supported/paid by) the NRA. 
• Mainstream news sources are withholding the truth due to an agenda-- While it's true that most for-profit news outlets do skew politically (some more than others), arguably their primary motive is making money, so it's in their interest to provide whatever grabs attention. Relying entirely on Fox, CNN, etc isn't the best idea,  though there are a lot of mainstream news sources that show less bias and provide greater research, insight, and integrity. The Associated Press and NPR, for instance, are extremely reliable with minimal bias (through providing objective facts and a platform for various viewpoints), are non-profit, and provide coverage of stories worldwide. 

Please understand that none us are responding to you as a means of shaming you. We just want you to be more aware.

35 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

If a lawyer's telling him to say that, he's getting bad counsel. 

I'm under the impression that people like Alex Jones, Trump, etc are so ego driven that they either have shit attorneys that aren't willing to tell them the hard truths, or don't listen to good counsel. Incidentally, there's a Washington Post article that just came up suggesting the same notion.

[indigoasis]

3 hours ago, Johann said:

I'm under the impression that people like Alex Jones, Trump, etc are so ego driven that they either have shit attorneys that aren't willing to tell them the hard truths, or don't listen to good counsel. Incidentally, there's a Washington Post article that just came up suggesting the same notion.

The thing with having bad clients, or just bad people as clients, is that they're difficult to defend. Lawyers are allowed to abandon clients "under certain circumstances," to quote the source. However, I've also read somewhere about how there was a lawyer who was defending a guy who was the guilty party, and the lawyer gave up and said that he wouldn't defend someone as horrible as that, to give a synopsis. I apologize for not citing a source, I don't remember where it was. It might've been a dream for all I know.

This probably isn't the best example, but Phoenix Wright. He's a (fictional) defense attorney. 

Spoiler

In the last case of Justice For All, Wright's client, Matt Engarde turns out to be guilty. Phoenix doesn't necessarily give up on the case by the, but turns the tides so that justice prevails. (It's cheesy, but that's the best way I can word it.)

Using a video game isn't the best example, especially one that uses a different, albeit very similar, legal system. If I went off-topic on this thread that I created... whoops.

[Shoblongoo]

49 minutes ago, AlmondJuice said:

The thing with having bad clients, or just bad people as clients, is that they're difficult to defend. Lawyers are allowed to abandon clients "under certain circumstances," to quote the source. However, I've also read somewhere about how there was a lawyer who was defending a guy who was the guilty party, and the lawyer gave up and said that he wouldn't defend someone as horrible as that, to give a synopsis. I apologize for not citing a source, I don't remember where it was. It might've been a dream for all I know.

This probably isn't the best example, but Phoenix Wright. He's a (fictional) defense attorney. 

  Reveal hidden contents

In the last case of Justice For All, Wright's client, Matt Engarde turns out to be guilty. Phoenix doesn't necessarily give up on the case by the, but turns the tides so that justice prevails. (It's cheesy, but that's the best way I can word it.)

Using a video game isn't the best example, especially one that uses a different, albeit very similar, legal system. If I went off-topic on this thread that I created... whoops.

I'm going to stop you right there, because Phoenix Wright is "similar" to the American legal system in the same sense that grinding out a romantic support chain in Fire Emblem is similar to dating. An attorney is not permitted to abandon a client without filing a motion to withdraw as counsel, and the motion being granted by a presiding judge. Abandoning a client without timely filing a motion to withdraw and the motion being granted is legal malpractice.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[eclipse]

11 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

Everyone I've spoken to about fake news in my ward, numbering at least twenty, around sixteen people from my work who have also engaged me in this discussion, at least ten people from the game store I play Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh!, and Cipher at each week, again mostly from them asking me if I heard the news. Average TV News station refers to CNN, Fox News, etc., and I should clarify that by completely trustworthy I mean they believe those stations to be reporting the news objectively without their own bias coming into play at all, which is a very difficult thing to pull off if you're not very careful, and I highly doubt the current mainstream media to be the sort to be so careful. Also sorry about the paragraphs, that's how most of my family writes so I tend to forget it gives some people nightmares.

That's a sample size of about fifty.  Out of roughly three hundred million in America.  What determines the truthfulness of your assessment would be a bunch of circumstances that are far too tedious to document.  I can count the number of people I know that think a given news source is unbiased on one finger.  It doesn't mean that either of us is necessarily wrong.  Instead, it means that a large group of people won't necessarily hold the same opinion as the group you're surrounded with.

If you can apply this type of thinking to whatever else you believe, you'll probably find the truth sooner or later.

EDIT: @Shoblongoo the irony is that I dislike the Phoenix Wright series because it looks nothing like a lawyer's job.

Edited April 20, 2018 by eclipse

[SoulWeaver]

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

That's a sample size of about fifty.  Out of roughly three hundred million in America.  What determines the truthfulness of your assessment would be a bunch of circumstances that are far too tedious to document.  I can count the number of people I know that think a given news source is unbiased on one finger.  It doesn't mean that either of us is necessarily wrong.  Instead, it means that a large group of people won't necessarily hold the same opinion as the group you're surrounded with.

If you can apply this type of thinking to whatever else you believe, you'll probably find the truth sooner or later.

Just to clarify, I simply said a surprising number of people, not that I thought the country at large believed this way(having only left my home state to go to California for vacations a handful of times, I'm hardly qualified to judge the entire country, and I admit that though sometimes my actions may seem otherwise). I was surprised as I expected the opinion to be less prevalent given the personalities and opinions in other aspects of life of the people mentioned. I wasn't trying to state that the country at large believes that way as a fact, just that the results of personal testing in my area were opposed to what my prior knowledge of those people had led me to believe they would be.

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, SoulWeaver said:

Just to clarify, I simply said a surprising number of people, not that I thought the country at large believed this way(having only left my home state to go to California for vacations a handful of times, I'm hardly qualified to judge the entire country, and I admit that though sometimes my actions may seem otherwise). I was surprised as I expected the opinion to be less prevalent given the personalities and opinions in other aspects of life of the people mentioned. I wasn't trying to state that the country at large believes that way as a fact, just that the results of personal testing in my area were opposed to what my prior knowledge of those people had led me to believe they would be.

Yet these are the types of beliefs that will fuel bigger beliefs.  That's why they need to be put under a microscope and questioned.

[SoulWeaver]

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Yet these are the types of beliefs that will fuel bigger beliefs.  That's why they need to be put under a microscope and questioned.

I suppose you do have a point, and I will keep this in mind for the future, thank you!

[NinjaMonkey]

8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I'm going to stop you right there, because Phoenix Wright is "similar" to the American legal system in the same sense that grinding out a romantic support chain in Fire Emblem is similar to dating.

That would be because the Ace Attorney series is a satire of the Japanese legal system, not the American one.

Edited April 20, 2018 by NinjaMonkey

[Lord Raven]

6 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

That would be because the Ace Attorney series is a satire of the Japanese legal system, not the American one.

Also because it's a visual novel and not real life. I doubt it emulates the Japanese legal system, too.