>>282132087
Whether I'm repeating something that has been said in the past in the past is irrelevant to whether the argument is correct or not. It's obviously an attempt to derail the conversation.

>yeah, and that doesn’t means it was yuri.
I never said it was yuri, I specifically called it as Class-S, but I don't know why you want to make the distinction when the claim was about lesbianism in Japan being censored, not a specific genre or what it was named. This was a tangent, you wanted to go down for some reason.

>both aren’t mutually exclusive
In regards to their stated motivation for something, they definitely can't be true at the same time. Also no evidence given for either claim.

>if there is not enough context to see the subtext then the subtext doesn’t exist.
That's incorrect because the person answering knows whether or not they'll be able to lend their car, even if they haven't made it clear to anyone else if they are able to by their actions.