>>3003310>supports the incestuous relationship>Because she cares more about her friend's happiness...she's not entirely ok with it
You are arguing semantics. Yes or no; Is incest considered shameful? Does she support the incestuous relationship without shame? Wow, would you look at that, she qualifies!>inb4 "Considered shameful by who?">suggests she would be fine with a threesome>You must be joking
Not in the slightest.>masturbation material>She's directly quoting Kirino, it's not really a Freudian slip. And of course it's because the words could be misinterpreted by the listener, in context the words aren't supposed to be lewd at all
So you agree she's a prude only in public. Whether she is or isn't is not the point; if she has a different view in private then she is shameless about having lewd thoughts that she would consider shameful in all other situations.>Does she still think of her lewd thoughts as shameful if she's alone>I would imagine she probably does given how she acts in public, but ultimately we have no way of knowing
You're ignoring the point: Either your defense is proven wrong and so my objective points are back on the table despite your handwaving or I am proven right. I win either way.>>3003315>But anyway I already said that I don't consider simply having lewd thoughts to be inherently shameless, what makes you shameless is not feeling ashamed afterwards>I already said that I don't consider>I don't consider>I
Your subjective interpretation is not a factor in this. You are either:
1. Completely objective
2. Arguing based upon her subjective view
Your interpretation is irrelevant.>And the rest of your post just attacks a strawman.
You take one trip to /pol/ and you think you know what that means?>Having lewd thoughts is normal. She's not shameless because she quite clearly is ashamed of them
That's your interpretation. Her interpretation is completely different. She qualifies for her own definition of what counts as being shameless.