I'm defending logic, it's pretty much all my degree is after all, so why not use it to call out bullshit on the internet. My Japanese is shit, but I'm assuming that picture says "I'm not interested in guys who like AKB" or something to that effect? Whatever it says it doesn't really matter, as you'll recall >>13345903 saying they don't have an interest beyond entertainment, so why would Paruru being interested in them matter?
You keep saying:
>cheap ethical standards, behavior and rhetoric
this kind of stuff, it doesn't mean anything unless you actually elaborate on what you think his ethical code is, how it relates to his actions, and what you perceive to be an acceptable ethical code to be.
>he defended himself not by advancing his own values
If by "advancing his own values" you mean explaining his motives, he definitely did do that. If you meant something else, explain.
>but caricaturing my argument and me
I already explained the ad hominem, it was in response to your own snide comment, and it _was not_ the body of his response, the next sentences was the actual response:
>Idols aren't our life partners, and I think a lot of us are into idols for entertainment too.
Which I can lay it out for you, he is saying:
"I enjoy Paruru because of a service [gutting nerds] she provides. Your proposed conflict wherein I should consider her opinion of others (or what she thinks of me) is counter-intuitive to this enjoyment factor."