BaldFerrets

The photos are fake. You can find the original blurred hand photo by googling "Knife/Stab Wound Prosthetic Bundle."

Just a forewarning for those who can't handle gorey images though. Even if they are fake, they look realistic.

Damn, nothing but the actors are promising (and even this is stretching it because Jun Ji Hyun has been in a slump for a while). Not sure how to feel about this...

He also directed Cruel City and Life on Mars, which were both fun dramas.

Uh, once you said I knew what you were talking about regarding lying is guilty (I didn't know what you meant when you claimed to be using deductive reasoning; perhaps you didn't know deductive reasoning means you can ascertain something without a doubt, but that's what it means), I moved on.
For my latest reply, the new topic has only been about your claim where I apparently said you think silence is an admission of guilt. I clarified that what I said was the negation of a claim, and the negation of a claim doesn't entail I am endorsing the positive of that claim. For example, if I tell you should not steal, this does not mean I am telling you you should give away your assets. Likewise, when I say you should never take someone's immediate silence as one's guilt, I am not claiming you think someone's silence is their guilt. You probably think his silence is a probabilistic factor to determine his guilt (otherwise, I'm not sure how to interpret what you wrote especially with the words you used), and my point is it shouldn't. Silence shouldn't be reliable data for anything unless he remained silent indefinitely

Finally, I never called you a hypocrite and I never prohibited quick judgment. That's something Jesus would say, not me. Once you claimed you didn't know much about LSK's case, I dropped the subject. You're the one who keeps bringing it back up.
What am I quick to judge you on? You claim I am misjudging you, but I am claiming you are misinterpreting me.

Hush money is regarding campaign financial laws, not defamation. Also, Stormy Daniels wasn't the plaintiff, state of New York is the one who pressed charges.

Your whole talking point has been that there is a very high probability that he is guilty. Then you conclude with
"Besides, KSH could have just easily quashed this hate train if he had showed up and explained everything, but instead he just spewed lies and is even hiding."

So is it not that there is a higher probability he is guilty given he is silent or "gone into hiding" as you say? Not sure how else to interpret this. And as a final point, I did not say you are claiming that silence is an admission of guilt. I said you should never take someone's immediate silence as an admission of guilt, or in other words, you should not increase someone's likelihood of being guilty given their silence. Because it seems like you're implying I am making a much stronger claim than I originally had (that I think you think silence = guilt or something like that).

Not sure where why you keep claiming I think you are claiming he certainly is lying. I was already sympathetic to your view when I wrote:
"Yeah, KSH's credibility dropped when he lied and will have to do more to make himself trustworthy. I don't disagree there."
But when you claim you're using deductive reasoning, idk what that means. Which is why I assumed you're bringing certainty into this (as that's what deductive reasoning is).
"Whether he's a compulsive liar or not, that would tarnish his credibility or your believing he has an increased probability of lying."
I mean, that's the general consensus that if someone's credibility drops because they lied, this suggests we believe they have an increased probability of lying.

When you write the opposite of his lie is that he committed, that's also confusing. What was his lie? That he wasn't in a relationship. The opposite of that is he was in a relationship. Now, if you think KSH lying about this is enough to drop all or most of his credibility, then I'd argue you are being way too excessive because if you put another Korean celebrity in KSH's shoes, even though they aren't a pedo, there is a fair likelihood they'd do the same thing as him.
If the simplification to everything is you believe the overall evidence indicates KSH is guilty. Sure, you're inclined to your opinion. I'd disagree and say there still isn't enough evidence. I haven't seen any evidence so far that conclusively shows KSH is a pedo. It is possible that he's very mindful of his predatory nature so he never took the extra step to make their romance blatantly obvious, whilst simulatenously being the biggest idiot for leaving plenty of physical evidence that he never figured out can be used against him. Or, he didn't dated her as a minor. I can speculate scenarios that can justify both sides. Only time will tell as KSR's parents provided KSR's phone for forensic investigation to allegedly provide evidence that KSH and KSR were dating when she was a minor.

No, it doesn't have to do with the hatetrain. I'm just noting the cons of this way of thinking and the hypocrisy, that's it. Nothing more or less than that. I even said I wasn't opposed to this way of thinking, so long as y'all are mindful of what y'all are doing.
And no, KSH just speaking out would be terrible. Let's suppose KSH is completely innocent. What I'd do is wait a bit, let the opposing side reveal all their cards, and take them to court and use everything and anything against them. That is what Depp's team did during the Depp v Heard defamation case. People also were quick to take Heard's side and cancel Depp until they started testifying and arguing in the court room. Not saying that this is what will happen as well, but I'm noting that you should never take someone's immediate silence as an admission of guilt or something like that.

That's not inductive or deductive. You can't go from he lied therefore he's guilty. That's a worse argument. Whether he's a compulsive liar or not, that would tarnish his credibility or your believing he has an increased probability of lying, but you'd then have to take another tremendous logical leap to say he's guilty. It's not even an inductive argument because you'd be saying liars have an increased risk of other moral failings beyond lying. Or another way of putting it, because you got caught using an illegal substance, you're more likely to commit murder.

Proof by contradiction is like:
Suppose I want to prove a dog is not a reptile. I'd assume the opposite and say a dog is a reptile. Then I'd assert all reptiles lay eggs. But a dog does not lay eggs. There is a contradiction. Therefore a dog is not a reptitle. This is deductive logic and has nothing to do with probabilities (which would be inductive or abductive logic) about lies.

Yeah, KSH's credibility dropped when he lied and will have to do more to make himself trustworthy. I don't disagree there. He will have to do something drastic such as taking them to court (which his agency is doing) or holding a press conference and not hide anything. This back and forth with the agency will only make him lose more credibility unless the agency drops a bomb shell or something.

My disagreement was specifically where you claimed we can posit, with a high probability, that given he lied about X, it means we can deduce it's the opposite of his claims. But no, that's not right: He lied about being in a relationship. So, he naturally was in a relationship. Now, you are claiming because he lied, we can deduce he lied about being in a relationship BECAUSE he was dating a minor, i.e. his pedo allegation. My argument is that is not right when he could have lied about it BECAUSE he wanted to save his image. There is nothing to suggest we should weigh one explanation more than the other just because he lied as it is conceivable to think KSH might think lying only to save his image is worth the risk.

If you're not sure about what transpired during the LSK case then it'll be hard to convey my argument that notes the hypocrisy of this behavior. Also, I'm not entirely against this type of thought process so long as you are aware that you shouldn't be overconfident when the evidence is not open and shut, and you should be even more cautious when you are part of a crowd in case you adopt a mob mentality.

No, I don't want absolute proof. I want compelling proof that they were in a relationship. Like I said, endearing and overly affectionate texting that could be seen in typical couples can be it. A photo of them kissing lip to lip would be undeniable. Maybe a photo reel of them enjoying their time on a date. But yeah, all we have is cheek to cheek or kisses on the cheek on a selfie and at a photo booth, where Sae Ron's age isn't known. Or, we have a photo with KSH in his briefs, which suggests they dated but not when KSR was a minor. If timestamps for the KSH's brief photo indicate it was taken when KSR was a minor, then that's compelling evidence.

What is the point of comments like this? I gave examples and not 1 demanded a sex tape.

I think everyone wants justice. But the quality of reaching that justice is more important than its swiftness.

No, that's not proof by contradiction nor is it reasonable to think if someone lies about X, it means not X is true in all contexts. That would be fallacious. For example, suppose I lied that I got you a present because I wanted to surprise you. By your logic, I would have not have gotten you a present because I wanted to surprise you. But this isn't a binary act. I may have gotten you the wrong present or an inferior present to trick you. Likewise, KSH's lies may have been to cover his pedophilia or grooming, but it could also be because he thought it might affect his status as a celebrity. As far as I know, he lied about being in a relationship and about GM pressuring KSR to pay. You can be a different Korean celebrity without any pedo claims, and still do what KSH did to preserve your image and have it make sense. Unless there is another lie that I'm overlooking.

Regarding probability: Yes, of course that's how people operate and that's the problem. In LSK's case, when you saw the evidence at real time, the evidence leaned heavily against him. He was caught lie after lie and on recording saying he'd sniff some powder through a straw. And his claim was that he thought it was sleeping powder. The girl who recorded him also testified it was ketamine and people assumed she had testified to the cops as a plea bargain. Well, later on, the story came out and it turned out she was a blackmailer, LSK really did think it was sleep pill (given he tested negative for every drug test), and given the strangeness of mainstream media coverage and public eye of LSK, even when the sources were not credible like Garo Sero, people (politicians) came to the conclusion that the president was trying to remove eyes from his wife's scandal at the time. Who would've guessed such a low probability reality was the actual reality at the time ? No one.

Solutions at an individual level can be: acknowledge this is how the entire cyberworld gathers information and makes conclusions, including ourselves. Then, take preemptive measures to form the best conclusion, such as considering the quality of sources, what the sources show compared to the actual claims, and alternative interpretations; be patient when there is limited data, etc. If you're asking for a solution at a group level: depending on the complexity of an issue, there is none lol. Maybe you can educate people little by little, but the louder crowd will always win because higher quality information always travels slower than lower quality information. At the same time, I don't think you ought to outright give up.

It's not a gotcha. I don't have anything to benefit over winning a debate with a Internet stranger. I am hoping people who disagree will understand my perspective and I am hoping to learn more too in case I missed something.

Sae Ron's statement is a fact and it's evidence. But it alone is not enough to suggest there was romantic interest whether of the pedo or grooming kind. This isn't to say she's lying. l can believe every word she says is her honest interpretation, but I might not accept what she means by "dating" is what we think of as "dating." For instance, maybe KSR mistook KSH's brotherly affections as romantic interest. In this scenario, if both parties didn't specify what their relationship is, confusion is completely understandable.

Grooming and pedo allegations require intentionality of such predatory behavior from the accused. And while there were close calls, I have not seen a clear-cut example.

Yup, I agree with what you said. I'll just add when it comes back to bite us (maybe not KSH but someone else), I doubt we'll take accountability and we'll just create a scapegoat lol.

Oh 100%. If and only if KSH is found to be a pedo, I'd want him to be completely cancelled. Regardless of the legality, if he's not cancelled or makes a comeback, I'd seriously question Korean society's ethic as they are willing to let a pedo be in the limelight but have very strict standards for drug use and drunk driving? I think any society that puts substance abuse worse than pedophilia needs a deep reflection. (And I hold Korean celeb culture to a much higher moral standard than American celeb culture).

My point has been and only been about what the evidence directly shows. People have been very critical of K-netz handling of other celebrity scandals for leaping to conclusions, such as LSK. My argument is that others are doing the same for KSH.

Maybe, but do you agree we're both making speculations? And if so, do you have something more conclusive that you want to share?

Okay, I'll be specific. Provide an example that supports your argument, not mine... Daniels lost her defamation case and needed to pay Trump in legal fees.

And there we go. At no point have I ever defended pedo behavior and even agreed that KSH's grooming was very probable and likely, just that it isn't conclusive. This parallels Garo Sero releasing evidence of Lee Sun Kyun sniffing powder through a straw and Lee Sun Kyun claiming he thought it was sleeping pills. I can acknowledge something looks very likely yet it's not conclusive, such as the fact that LSK never got tested for drugs in his system! Unless, you didn't follow LSK's case, it's insane to me how y'all don't see the similarities of how y'all are handling a situation in the same way that y'all were crying about how K-netz handled it less than 2 years ago.

No, I'm not opposed to writing speculations. I am opposed to expecting people believing my speculation and insisting others believe it.
It would be those who are critical of Korea's "bully culture" who should not resort to any speculations since the idea is that you should not allow any speculative and partial evidence cancel a celebrity. Like I said, I certainly don't mind KSH getting cancelled and would understand if he did. My argument is 1. cancelling KSH right now is based on speculative evidence and 2. this behavior is consistent with Korea's "bully culture" so those complicit in this behavior shouldn't be hypercritical of K-nets who engage in the same type of behavior.

Okay, but why swap over to Telegram and why as soon as she's an adult? Do you think that was also coincidental?

That's not an appropriate example... First, it would prove my case because the judge dismissed Daniels' defamation suit and claimed Trump's denials and insults of Daniels were protected under free speech. Second, you are doing yourself no favor by looking for American cases because Korea's defamation laws are a lot stricter. So, if you have a point, you'd have a much better shot looking through Korean cases over American ones.

Yeah, you're right. I think Kim Soo Hyun should explain himself in that case.

My opinion:
The claim is they dated in the summer of 2019 and July 31 2000 is KSR's birthday. My speculation is they dated as soon as she turned legal, which would be summer of 2018, and the agency lied they dated a year later to make him look less creepy. That would be more logical to me than he dated her in 2015 but once she's an adult, he wants her to switch over to Telegram? Wouldn't he have done that when she's still a minor if they were dating?