What I'm asserting is that words =/= actions, and that goes for Ken as well as for anyone. What we have are Ken's words narrating past events. Go read that screencap of his confession again and notice how many times he says things like "I can't be sure" or "I think/I don't know." It is a narrative full of doubt.
In order to get to the simplified version of events that says "Ken is a child rapist" you have to actively erase all of the doubt from the story he tells in that confession and take only the words you choose to extract as equal to past actions.
From a rational perspective that isn't caught up in this mass panic, it's just plain not defensible to claim that you can extract the truth of past events from that post. You have a story told by someone who doubts the events in their own memory and doubts their own perspective on them, and yet you are treating this as a factual account where absolutely nothing is uncertain. And that is just very plainly not the case.
No matter how hard you try to avoid it, the foundation of all of this is the very uncertain story as Ken himself is telling it years later. You're filling in "certainty" from your suppositions and your expectations of what the story "must be." Sorry to have to tell you that not every event is the one that you expect it to be.
Re: THE LOVE HOTEL
What I'm asserting is that words =/= actions, and that goes for Ken as well as for anyone. What we have are Ken's words narrating past events. Go read that screencap of his confession again and notice how many times he says things like "I can't be sure" or "I think/I don't know." It is a narrative full of doubt.
In order to get to the simplified version of events that says "Ken is a child rapist" you have to actively erase all of the doubt from the story he tells in that confession and take only the words you choose to extract as equal to past actions.
From a rational perspective that isn't caught up in this mass panic, it's just plain not defensible to claim that you can extract the truth of past events from that post. You have a story told by someone who doubts the events in their own memory and doubts their own perspective on them, and yet you are treating this as a factual account where absolutely nothing is uncertain. And that is just very plainly not the case.
No matter how hard you try to avoid it, the foundation of all of this is the very uncertain story as Ken himself is telling it years later. You're filling in "certainty" from your suppositions and your expectations of what the story "must be." Sorry to have to tell you that not every event is the one that you expect it to be.