>>3004269>dance back and forth between "objectivity" when it suits youNo, I'm specifically considering her subjective interpretation in order to determine intent. That's not a fallacy, in fact it's quite unreasonable to not do this when making character judgements. Let's apply your line of reasoning to a different context
A man stands on trial for killing a pedestrian in a car accident. The accused is an animal rights activist, he wouldn't hurt a fly let alone a person. The incident is caught on CCTV so there is no question that the accused was driving. The judge wears leather shoes during the trial. Following your reasoning, the judge either cannot consider the man's intent and therefore must convict him of murder by default, or he can consider intent and convict the man of manslaughter, but at the same time must convict himself of murder since he is wearing leather shoes, which the accused considers to be an act of murder.
Obviously this is absurd. The correct outcome is to determine intent, sentence for manslaughter, but reject the man's subjective definition of murder. I'm not arguing if Ruri is "incedentally" shameless because that's as meaningless as convicting the man of murder, and I'm not arguing if Ruri is shameless by her own definition because that's as ridiculous as the judge convicting himself. Therefore appealing to either of these notions is both pointless and a strawman argument