>>3004665Alright I'm going to break this down to you in as few sentences as possible so maybe you won't ignore it.
1. I said she was shameless
2. You insisted she was not
3. I brought forth objective empirical evidence from the LN (& anime in 1 case) that lends credibility to my statement, and that such statement fits with the objective definition of actions that qualify for shameless.
>>2999317 >>2999666 >>3000443 >>30015383. You insist that none of this evidence is valid because it does not take into account her "interpretation." We must consider her "subjective" view on the matter and anything else is null and void. i.e. You handwave it. This evidence is off the table.
4. You double down like 17 times on this principle.
5. I then switch to subjective and show that by her own subjective definition she qualifies.
>>30028336. The moment I do this you start spouting some nonsense about how this isn't valid because it doesn't fulfill the objective definition of shameless. The objective definition that you decided was null and void when I was using objective evidence.
