eighthsense

First of all the fakass vlog music playing at random times is throwing me off. Then hooking up with your friend’s crush while your brother and that friend are in the same room is unhinged traumatising behaviour lmao. I almost threw up 😭 like at least go to a different room or a bathroom!! You’re not animals in heat 😭

I would like to reply to a few more things.

“People just don’t agree with your interpretation, and that should be okay.”
This frames the disagreement as purely subjective taste, when that’s not what’s happening. As I have mentioned several times in the review that you appreciated my effort for, I’m not critiquing disliking the show; I’m critiquing specific claims like “this is propaganda,” “this is too woke,” or “this agenda shouldn’t exist here.” Reducing ideological judgments to “different opinions” erases the substance of the argument.

“You treat anyone who dislikes the themes as ignorant or morally flawed.”
That’s a strawman. I repeatedly distinguish between:
* criticism of execution, pacing, or writing, and
* rejection of queer existence or women’s autonomy as inherently political or corrupting
Only the second is being challenged. If someone feels attacked by that distinction, the discomfort may be coming from recognition, not misrepresentation.

“Freedom of speech protects discomfort and disagreement.”
True and irrelevant. Freedom of speech prevents state punishment, not social critique. Invoking it here implies that criticism of an opinion is somehow a violation of the right to hold it, which it isn’t. I’m exercising the same freedom of speech by analyzing and opposing those views.

“People aren’t saying these people shouldn’t exist.”
Intent is not the only thing that matters; impact and framing do too. When representation is framed as “agenda” or “propaganda,” it implicitly casts those people’s existence as intrusive, excessive, or illegitimate. You don’t have to say “they shouldn’t exist” explicitly for the implication to be clear.

“Not everyone wants politics or activism in entertainment.”
This assumes that queer people and women’s bodily autonomy are “politics” rather than lived realities. A law drama depicting discrimination, coercion, or rights violations isn’t adding politics, it’s reflecting the subject matter of the genre. Calling this “activism” reveals an expectation that entertainment should default to the comfort of the majority.

“Disliking a show doesn’t mean they want to control anyone’s life.”
Again, I’m not making that claim universally. I’m critiquing arguments that explicitly oppose autonomy and representation. When someone says a show is wrong because it affirms legal choice or queer rights, that criticism is no longer about taste, it’s about values.

“Your review pushes an agenda too.”
This is a false equivalence. Advocating for autonomy, consent, and legal equality does not require restricting anyone else’s freedoms. The “agenda” being defended by some commenters does. Treating both as morally symmetrical ignores power dynamics and consequences.

“Dismissing criticism turns discussion into a moral lecture.”
Discussion doesn’t require pretending all critiques are equally coherent or ethically neutral. Calling out weak logic, loaded language, or harmful framing is part of discussion. A conversation that forbids moral analysis isn’t open minded, it’s sanitized.

“You like the show. Others don’t. Both can be true.”
This oversimplifies the entire debate into personal preference, which conveniently sidesteps the actual issue: how certain reactions pathologize marginalized rights while disguising that discomfort as media criticism.

What I find genuinely audacious is the attempt to frame all of this as “just critique.” Please learn the difference between critique and hate. I have also mentioned in that in my review. “Critique isn’t oppression” is a diabolical thing to say when people are being hated just for being represented in media. So by that logic when racist things are being said about people of colour being represented in media, it should be considered as critique and personal preference, not oppression? If media had depicted women voting before suffrage, and the response was a flood of misogynistic claims about corruption, social decay, or women “pushing an agenda,” we would not retroactively label that as neutral critique, it would rightly be recognized as part of the opposition to women’s rights. The same principle applies here: when representation of marginalized people is framed as intrusive, dangerous, or illegitimate, that framing functions to undermine their rights and social legitimacy.

Disliking a show, its writing, pacing, or even how it handles themes is completely valid. Hating on the show because of certain people being represented and certain topics covered in a law drama deserves questioning.

There’s a difference between saying “this storyline was poorly executed” and saying “stop pushing this agenda” the moment queer people or women’s bodily autonomy appear on screen. The first is critique. The second is ideological panic. Collapsing those two into the same category is exactly the issue.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, hiding dehumanizing views behind “freedom of speech” doesn’t make them neutral or harmless, it just avoids accountability. You’re free to speak, and others are free to call out speech that reduces real people to something debatable. Freedom of speech doesn’t obligate anyone else to treat every opinion as equally well reasoned or equally detached from broader social implications. When people frame human rights as “politics” that should be kept out of a law drama, that’s not neutral taste, it’s a value judgment about whose realities are allowed to be depicted without being labeled propaganda.

I’m not saying everyone who dislikes the show wants to control others’ lives. I’m saying that specific arguments calling autonomy an “agenda,” calling representation “Western corruption,” or dismissing coercion as moral correctness rely on rhetoric that historically has been used to justify control. That’s a critique of logic and framing, not an accusation of personal evil.

Yes, I’m pushing a position: that law dramas engaging with justice shouldn’t sanitize or delegitimize the existence of marginalized people. I’ve never pretended otherwise. The difference is that my position doesn’t require silencing anyone else’s existence to function. People can disagree with me and still exist freely. That isn’t always true in reverse.

So yes, people can dislike the show. Yes, people can critique its writing. What I’m rejecting is the idea that discomfort with marginalized rights is automatically just “another valid interpretation” immune from challenge. Debate doesn’t stop at “agree to disagree” when the disagreement hinges on whether certain lives and choices should be treated as controversial by default.

Critique isn’t oppression. But not all critique is created equal, and pointing that out isn’t censorship, it’s participation in the same discussion you’re defending. As you said disagreement is not hate, so there is no need for you to be this upset about me disagreeing with others who clearly hate people having rights. I only thought people hating, lacked critical thinking skills but now I think they also lack comprehension skills. I have already mentioned majority of the points in my review and people still come up with excuses to defend hatred towards people.

Thank you! This review wouldn’t have existed if the criticism was directed towards bad writing or acting. People are spewing blatant hate towards other human beings and their rights being brought up. These people are speaking from privilege of not ever being scrutinised just for existing or scrutinised for being “different”. Reading all those comments, I realised this is not something they don’t agree with, it is something they despise. That is really uncalled for.

Thank you! I cannot believe people still have so much hate in their hearts. I don’t know what Kdrama bubble they live in to comment such things on a law drama.

Thank you so much for your kind words!! I have only watched 4 episodes for now. The 4th episode left a bad taste. I don’t think this show provides complete justice to the topics being covered but the hate people were spewing was unjustified and misdirected. I rarely write reviews but I couldn’t ignore the ignorant takes.

Okay… thank you for the perspective.

I wanna know how anything Fan xiao has done/is doing, redeemable or forgivable? It is possible to analyse and understand why he is doing what he is doing but the damage he is causing, is it really forgivable?

Now that’s a criticism. They brought the social issue out and did nothing with it. This review is not about that, is it?

Yeah, same. That moment was jarring, especially in a show positioning itself as a defender of human rights. It pulls you out of the narrative and makes you question whether it was careless writing, selective morality, or deliberate provocation. Either way, it undercuts the credibility of the message they’re trying to sell.

I agree with you. When it comes to anything even remotely connected to MAPs, people are allowed to draw a hard line without having to justify themselves. Protecting children isn’t an ideology, it’s a basic responsibility, and media should be especially careful with the symbols it uses. Walking away and criticising is a completely valid response.

I also share the same stance. The case did start with a concrete, legally solid issue: lack of informed consent, medical neglect, and failure of duty of care toward the mother. That should have been the spine of the courtroom argument. Instead, the narrative pivoted into a broad moral/philosophical debate, which diluted accountability. When a legal drama raises systemic harm and then resolves it through a benevolent authority figure’s goodwill, it undercuts the very idea of justice.

I also agree that the adoption resolution felt narratively and ethically shaky. It was framed as “hope,” but structurally it functioned as coercion masked by kindness. They ended up romanticising the harm. So yes, the emotional beats may have landed for some viewers, but the underlying problems the show itself raised were never meaningfully addressed, which is why the resolution feels unsatisfying rather than cathartic. They gave us an ending that substitutes empathy optics for actual justice.

Idk what you meant when you said “your kind”, I’m straight and I can see how dishonest (preachy) your comment is. You’re projecting hard. No one is demanding “the entire world” follow anything, you’re the one demanding that queer people disappear from media so you don’t have to see them. That’s not cultural pluralism, it’s just entitlement dressed up as antiwoke rhetoric.

Also, calling representation “propaganda shoved down people’s throats” while defending the status quo is ironic. Straight, cis narratives have dominated global media for decades, that wasn’t “neutral,” it was just normalized because it centered you. Visibility is not coercion but inclusion.

And the “not everyone lives by Western ideologies” argument collapses instantly when you remember that queer people exist in every culture, every country, every era….often erased or punished, not invented by TikTok or Netflix. Pretending queer stories are a Western export is historically illiterate.

And spare me the “bad writing” excuse. If this were about quality, you’d critique lazy straight rom coms with the same energy. You don’t, you only start crying about “standards” when queer characters show up. That’s not critique, that’s prejudice with a thesaurus.

The funniest part? You keep yapping about the “real world” while proving you’ve never actually engaged with it outside your little rage bubble. Queer people live, work, and survive in the real world every day often despite people like you. My circle is diverse and full of decent people, imagine that, a real world beyond your echo chamber. And funny enough, every time I step outside that circle, I encounter even more diversity, not less. So maybe try taking your own advice. Step outside, and you’ll see even more diversity, not a meltdown. What kind of argument even is this? Diversity isn’t something you debate away, and it doesn’t vanish because you call it propaganda.

You don’t want realism. You want invisibility. And the world is not obligated to shrink itself so you don’t have to confront people who exist. The world is more diverse than your feed, and it doesn’t owe you comfort.

That logic is embarrassingly broken. It’s like saying: “Animals breathe oxygen, animals also kill each other, so breathing oxygen must be morally suspect.” See how stupid that sounds? The fact that animals do multiple unrelated things doesn’t make those things morally equivalent.

Animals sneeze. Animals also eat their own feces. Pointing out that sneezing is natural doesn’t mean we’re endorsing feces eating. Animals sleep. Animals r*pe. By your logic, mentioning sleep as natural is meaningless because r*pe also exists in nature. Animals also nurture orphaned young, form lifelong pair bonds, and cooperate for survival. Animals also commit infanticide. Comparing consensual same sex behaviour to cannibalism only works if you think consent and violence are morally interchangeable, which is an alarming position to take.

Cannibalism causes direct harm to others; homosexuality between consenting adults does not. Ethics isn’t “animals do it = humans should do it,” it’s harm vs. no harm. Animal examples are used to debunk the claim that homosexuality is “unnatural,” not to dictate human morality wholesale.

If your best rebuttal is comparing consensual relationships to violence, you’ve already lost the argument. One is about consent and dignity; the other is about harm. Pretending they’re comparable is either intellectually lazy or deliberately dishonest. Your arguement has no grasp of basic ethical reasoning.

I want to clarify a few more things.

You didn’t really engage with what I was saying….instead, you read my explanation of bodily autonomy as a rejection of the fetus’s value, assumed an aggressive or extreme intent behind it, and responded defensively to a position you felt was dehumanizing rather than to the argument I actually made.

“That the issue is an ethical grey area. He is not confusing biological fact with opinion, actually - you are.”
Physiological dependence is a descriptive biological fact, not a moral judgment. Whether dependence matters ethically is debatable, but the dependence itself is not. It’s not “my opinion”. Ethical disagreement begins after biological facts are established, not by denying them.

“You are convinced a ball of cells (zygote) is not a human because the law states that -”
I was consistently grounding my argument in biology (physiological dependence, lack of independent organ function, reliance on another circulatory/respiratory system). You responded as if I was making a metaphysical or legal claim about humanity, which I was not.
This is a misrepresentation designed to shift the debate from bodily autonomy to an emotionally charged question of “human worth,” which I never put at issue. My argument does not depend on denying humanity.

“That is why abortion is restricted after 3 months.”
Laws reflect political, cultural, and emotional negotiation, not settled ethics. Different countries set radically different limits, some none at all, showing there is no universal ethical conclusion being “proved.”
Legal restriction shows regulation, not moral refutation of bodily autonomy.

“Special status”
Citing fetal homicide laws as proof of fetal 'interests' or personhood fundamentally ignores their historical, functional, and legal intent.
First, these laws were largely designed to protect the pregnant person, not to grant the fetus independent rights. Historically, feticide laws were a response to the reality that domestic violence often targets pregnant women. The law recognizes that a third party who terminates a wanted pregnancy has committed a profound violation, not against a legal 'person,' but against the pregnant individual’s right to determine their own reproductive future.
Second, the 'property vs. person' distinction is crucial. If someone destroys a unique piece of art I am creating, the law punishes them for the loss of my labor, my property, and my future interest. This does not mean the art itself has 'rights' or 'interests.' Similarly, many fetal homicide laws act as a 'sentencing enhancement' for the harm done to the pregnant person. They recognize the fetus as a potential life that the pregnant person has chosen to value, rather than a separate legal entity with a competing claim against the 'host.'
Third, the 'Consent Exception' proves the rule. In the vast majority of jurisdictions, feticide laws specifically exempt the pregnant person and their medical providers. If a fetus actually possessed the 'interest' in living that you suggest, the law would be forced to treat the pregnant person as a murderer for a late term abortion. The fact that the law only applies to non-consensual third party violence reveals that the 'interest' being protected is the pregnant person's choice, not the fetus's life.
Fourth, the 2025 landscape shows us the danger of this conflation. While you claim these laws show the fetus has interests, the Pregnancy Justice organization has documented that when states do move toward treating the fetus as an independent victim, it is almost exclusively used to criminalize pregnant people for miscarriages, stillbirths, or substance use.
Unless the law grants a fetus the right to sue for its own protection or allows the state to intervene against the pregnant person's will in every instance, it is not a declaration of 'fetal rights.' It is a recognition of the state’s interest in protecting a person’s right to gestate without outside interference. To use a law meant to protect women from violence as a justification for limiting their bodily autonomy is a legal and ethical inversion.

“The fetus has an interest in living.”
Having an interest does not grant the right to override another’s bodily integrity. All dying patients have an interest in living, none can compel donation. Interest ≠ enforceable claim on another’s body.

“Your view treats the fetus like a parasite.”
Dependence is not dehumanization. Calling biological reliance “parasitic” is an emotional mischaracterization, not an argument.

“Your logic allows killing viable fetuses.”
This ignores the critical distinction between the fetus's 'viability' and its 'location.'
Viability measures physiological independence, not a right to use another person’s organs. If a fetus can survive outside the womb, there is no biological justification to compel gestation; if it cannot, viability is irrelevant to autonomy. The 'viable' argument is often a red herring in ethics. Statistics from the KFF and CDC show that abortions after viability (after 21 weeks of gestation) are vanishingly rare (around 1% in US) and almost exclusively involve severe fetal anomalies or life threatening maternal complications. Using these rare, tragic cases to dismantle the fundamental principle of bodily autonomy for all pregnant people is a disproportionate and logically inconsistent leap.

“This logic leads to infanticide.”
This logic cannot lead to infanticide because birth is the definitive moral and physiological boundary. Once a child is born, it is an independent organism whose life the state can protect without commandeering the internal organs of another human. My argument centers on the right to refuse biological use, not a right to kill a separate, self sustaining person.

In short: My argument was based on biological facts, physiological dependence and bodily autonomy…..not on legal definitions. The law does not determine whether a zygote is biologically dependent; that is a scientific fact. By clarifying that my argument wasn't limited to early abortion, I was asserting that the principle of bodily integrity remains constant regardless of developmental stage. You misinterpreted this precision as 'militancy,' incorrectly assuming that mentioning a zygote was an attempt to dehumanize later stage fetuses. In reality, it was a way to isolate the core ethical variable: the requirement of consent for the use of one's biological systems.

Appealing to your credentials doesn’t resolve the substance of the argument, so let’s stay with the actual claims.

First, I did not argue that a zygote or fetus is “nothing,” nor did I claim the law defines it as non-human. I explicitly stated that even if moral status is granted, moral status does not entail a right to use another person’s body without consent. That distinction is central to modern bioethics and you did not address it, you replaced it with a strawman about parasites and extremism.

Second, you conflate legal recognition of fetal interests with biological independence, which are separate domains. Saying a fetus is biologically dependent is not an insult, nor does it reduce it to cancer; it is a medical fact. Dependence is the relevant variable in bodily integrity ethics, not humanity, appearance, or emotional response. That is why no born human, regardless of age, innocence, or likelihood of survival can compel another person to provide organs, blood, or life sustaining bodily functions.

Third, bodily autonomy is indeed not absolute, but every accepted limitation requires due process, proportionality, and competing rights between independent persons. Pregnancy is unique because the competing interest exists entirely within and through another person’s organs. The law limiting abortion does not negate the ethical argument; it merely demonstrates that states sometimes prioritize fetal interests over women’s autonomy. That is a political and legal choice, not a refutation of the ethical principle itself.

Fourth, the comparison to kidney removal misses the point. The analogy is not about procedural similarity; it is about compelled biological use. If the state cannot force a person to remain connected to life support machinery for another human even temporarily then compelling gestation is a far more extreme intrusion, not a lesser one.

Fifth, citing gestational limits or fetal harm laws does not establish fetal personhood or a right to another’s body. Those laws are internally inconsistent across jurisdictions precisely because they are policy compromises, not reflections of settled biological or ethical truth. Many countries criminalize late abortion while still rejecting fetal legal personhood, again showing this is regulation, not ontology.

Sixth, invoking hypothetical people who support infanticide is irrelevant. Ethical arguments are not invalidated by imagined extremes. My position does not permit killing born children because birth marks the transition to physiological independence after which the state can protect life without commandeering another person’s body.

Finally, discomfort, recognizability, or empathy are not ethical principles. They are emotional responses. Law may reflect them, but ethics cannot be grounded in “most people feel uncomfortable.” Women’s rights cannot hinge on how aesthetically or emotionally acceptable a pregnancy appears to others.
To be clear: acknowledging complexity does not mean surrendering coherence. The ethical core remains unchanged, no entity, regardless of moral status, acquires a right to another person’s organs without consent. Treating pregnancy as the sole exception is precisely what reduces pregnant people to vessels, whether or not one supports abortion rights.

Being “pro-abortion” does not require diluting the argument. Precision is not militancy.

Everytime Dew is on screen, my heart goes feral. He is so fine and his character is so charismatic. I need to be on a leash to finish this series.

I totally agree. Compared to other similar genres that give us nothing but are given a high rating because of face cards and popularity of the genre itself, this is low rating. Some dramas in this genre, released this year has a better rating regardless of plotholes and bad writing. Also the loud disappointment from certain individuals full of hate and misinformation make it clear as to why the rating is low and why it doesn’t make sense when the drama + production + acting is good.

Louder for people in the back!!!!

Tell me about it. The ridiculous ignorant takes from people who gave this drama a low rating just after watching 2/4 eps is appalling. Idk what they were expecting from a LAW drama in 2025.