Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To begin reform is to begin revolution.

Thought begets Heresy, Heresy begets Retribution.

Educate men without Faith, and you make them but clever devils.

A fine mind is a blessing of the Emperor - It should not be cluttered with trivialities.

Be strong in your ignorance.

A logical argument must be dismissed with absolute conviction!

A questioning servant is more dangerous than an ignorant heretic

A small mind is a tidy mind.

A small mind is easily filled with faith.

An Empty Mind Is A Loyal Mind

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt

Contemplation is the womb of treachery

Faith, Hate and Ignorance

Ignorance is a virtue

Ignorance is bliss

Knowledge is to be feared!

Knowledge is to be feared!

Reason begets doubt; Doubt begets heresy.

Reason is the cloak of Traitors

The difference between heresy and treachery is ignorance

To question is to doubt

Trying to understand weakens the will to act

You are not required to think, only to act

... I miss any? This is why education is worthless in 40K for the unwashed masses of humanity.

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Not exactly.

Might is reality, but that doesn't always make it right per se.

On the contrary, the victors are just, regardless of any war crimes they committed.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

The ability to do a thing does not make it the right thing. If I rape a woman, have I done the right thing, just because I was able to?

If you can get away with it, who or what is going to make you pay for it? If someone makes use of 'poetic justice', he'll be convicted as a murderer. Justice is relative...what is just for some is not just for others...even if what you did is 'right' or 'wrong', the law will not always be on your side. And this is a bit philosophical, but terms like 'good', 'evil', 'right and wrong', are but Human terms, meaningless as far as the greater universe is concerned.

Having read through this... though I had fun posting Thoughts for the Day... I'm convinced that this thread is just trollbait.

Psienesis wrote:I'm convinced that this thread is just trollbait.

Good point, why is something like this even in 40k General Discussion?

Tadashi wrote:If you can get away with it

Is that your definition of 'right' though? What you can get away with?

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:If you can get away with it

Is that your definition of 'right' though? What you can get away with?

No. But I look to the law for what is right and wrong. Good and evil I can do away with - its too complicated. If the suspect somehow manages to get away on a technicality, or an innocent gets framed, so be it. The law is the law.

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

DOOMBREAD wrote:violence is the ultimate authority from which all others are derived.

In other words, no matter what high-sounding ideals we spout, in the end, might is right.

Not exactly.

Might is reality, but that doesn't always make it right per se.

On the contrary, the victors are just, regardless of any war crimes they committed.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

The ability to do a thing does not make it the right thing. If I rape a woman, have I done the right thing, just because I was able to?

If you can get away with it, who or what is going to make you pay for it? If someone makes use of 'poetic justice', he'll be convicted as a murderer. Justice is relative...what is just for some is not just for others...even if what you did is 'right' or 'wrong', the law will not always be on your side. And this is a bit philosophical, but terms like 'good', 'evil', 'right and wrong', are but Human terms, meaningless as far as the greater universe is concerned.

In the grim darkness of the 41st millenium there is only Moral Nihilism.

I would have to agree with Kaldor you are spouting nonsense, might is right because you can get away with it? You aren't a space marine IRL, this is not the Horus Heresy.

If good and evil are meaningless then so is your philosophy as it is a human construct along with anything else your brain comes up with. I guess that means if nothing is of consequence or value now we can all neck ourselves.

Hadarac wrote:To obtain a true democracy you must have educated citizens.

The first sentence is wrong, why read the rest?

If twenty cave men pick "Ug" as the leader because he is stronger than the rest of them, isn't that a true democracy as well?

Why do you have to be educated? You just have to have freedom of choice, and a choice!

Asuryan wrote:

If good and evil are meaningless then so is your philosophy as it is a human construct along with anything else your brain comes up with. I guess that means if nothing is of consequence or value now we can all neck ourselves.

And the universe wouldn't shed a tear...I got that from reading H.P. Lovecraft. The universe is vast...to it, we and our planet are less than a grain of sand. Therefore, transhumanism - technological superiority and accelerated evolution via artificial means - is the key...I won't be satisfied until I see Humans are like Eldar - our mere thoughts killing stars and making something from nothing. MAKE THE UNIVERSE ACKNOWLEDGE US...BOW BEFORE US. Only then will right and wrong, even good and evil, become real...because we have transcended the universe itself.

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:If you can get away with it

Is that your definition of 'right' though? What you can get away with?

No. But I look to the law for what is right and wrong. Good and evil I can do away with - its too complicated. If the suspect somehow manages to get away on a technicality, or an innocent gets framed, so be it. The law is the law.

The law is just a tool that might be broken. Getting away with murder or rape is not a slight justification and not getting away is not a punishment - your conscience and moral compass or lack of might be. If you lack a conscience or moral compass, you're an animal for me but that's obviously relative. I would still hurt you accordingly for mentioned crimes, to make sure you're aware of the pain etc.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:If you can get away with it

Is that your definition of 'right' though? What you can get away with?

No. But I look to the law for what is right and wrong. Good and evil I can do away with - its too complicated. If the suspect somehow manages to get away on a technicality, or an innocent gets framed, so be it. The law is the law.

The law is just a tool that might be broken. Getting away with murder or rape is not a slight justification and not getting away is not a punishment - your conscience and moral compass or lack of might be. If you lack a conscience or moral compass, you're an animal for me but that's obviously relative. I would still hurt you accordingly for mentioned crimes, to make sure you're aware of the pain etc.

And how different would that make you in the eyes of the law and the judicial system? To uphold the law means to be blind, to maintain balance. The conscience and moral compass are useless as far as the law is concerned.

Tadashi wrote:And how different would that make you in the eyes of the law and the judicial system? To uphold the law means to be blind, to maintain balance. The conscience and moral compass are useless as far as the law is concerned.

Look, the things that we call 'right' and 'wrong' are evolved psychological constructs that enable us to live together in communities. While their is fluctuation between them, they hinge on common factors of empathy and sympathy, greed, and a desire to protect what is ours. This manifests in different ways (stoning people to death for adultery in some countries, for example) but the key factors remain the same.

Are you saying you have no concept of right and wrong as moral constructs? That you are totally devoid of empathy, or other human emotions?

Kaldor wrote:Look, the things that we call 'right' and 'wrong' are evolved psychological constructs that enable us to live together in communities. While their is fluctuation between them, they hinge on common factors of empathy and sympathy, greed, and a desire to protect what is ours. This manifests in different ways (stoning people to death for adultery in some countries, for example) but the key factors remain the same.

Your missing a few, but otherwise have the right idea. The ''pillars of morality'' are Empathy, Reciprocity (or fairness), Loyalty, Authority, Purity and Liberty. Each and everyone of them are identifiable in even some of the most basic social lifeforms.

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:And how different would that make you in the eyes of the law and the judicial system? To uphold the law means to be blind, to maintain balance. The conscience and moral compass are useless as far as the law is concerned.

Look, the things that we call 'right' and 'wrong' are evolved psychological constructs that enable us to live together in communities. While their is fluctuation between them, they hinge on common factors of empathy and sympathy, greed, and a desire to protect what is ours. This manifests in different ways (stoning people to death for adultery in some countries, for example) but the key factors remain the same.

Are you saying you have no concept of right and wrong as moral constructs? That you are totally devoid of empathy, or other human emotions?

No. But I put aside my personal beliefs and ideals in favor of what the law demands. Everyone knows the guy is a rapist - because of a technicality he gets acquitted. While I would love nothing more than to have him shot in public, I'm not going to act on that because that's what the law decrees. Another example is Syria - I find the West's condemnation of Russia and China defending their middle eastern assets in Syria as tripe. What do you expect them to do? Sacrifice their interests by letting America and its allies further extend its power into the region? Same with the condemnations of the Syria government's ruthlessness. You expect them not to do anything as a rebellion rages?

I have empathy and other Human emotions - I just chain them away. For a variety of reasons.

Tadashi wrote:
No. But I put aside my personal beliefs and ideals in favor of what the law demands. Everyone knows the guy is a rapist - because of a technicality he gets acquitted. While I would love nothing more than to have him shot in public, I'm not going to act on that because that's what the law decrees.

And the fact that you might end up very dead if you decided to act on your impulse has nothing to do with it?

Another example is Syria - I find the West's condemnation of Russia and China defending their middle eastern assets in Syria as tripe. What do you expect them to do? Sacrifice their interests by letting America and its allies further extend its power into the region? Same with the condemnations of the Syria government's ruthlessness. You expect them not to do anything as a rebellion rages?

Beyond political gains, there are numerous reasons why one should promote a moral society. For exemple, you can pretty much correlate social developpment with overall individual trusthwortyness.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
No. But I put aside my personal beliefs and ideals in favor of what the law demands. Everyone knows the guy is a rapist - because of a technicality he gets acquitted. While I would love nothing more than to have him shot in public, I'm not going to act on that because that's what the law decrees.

And the fact that you might end up very dead if you decided to act on your impulse has nothing to do with it?

No. More like if I act on it I'll be the one standing in front of a judge next.

Another example is Syria - I find the West's condemnation of Russia and China defending their middle eastern assets in Syria as tripe. What do you expect them to do? Sacrifice their interests by letting America and its allies further extend its power into the region? Same with the condemnations of the Syria government's ruthlessness. You expect them not to do anything as a rebellion rages?

Beyond political gains, there are numerous reasons why one should promote a moral society. For exemple, you can pretty much correlate social developpment with overall individual trusthwortyness.

My point is that simply because Russia/China/Syria are simply doing what America would do in their place gives America and its allies no right to condemn their actions. And no one in this world is truly qualified to judge what is right and wrong. What is just for some is not for others - the Tokyo War Crime Trials are a perfect example. Japanese war criminals were tried, but the ones who ordered the fire-bombing of Japanese cities and the nuclear attacks were not - what the lone dissenting judge, Radhabinod Pal, described as 'a sword wrapped in the toga of justice'.

The best we can come to true justice is to place the interests of the greater community, in our case, our respective nations, above that of individuals or even other nations.

Tadashi wrote:
No. More like if I act on it I'll be the one standing in front of a judge next.

So you admit acting out of self-preservation... something which could be perceived as an intrinsic good... ?

My point is that simply because Russia/China/Syria are simply doing what America would do in their place gives America and its allies no right to condemn their actions.

Well yeah that's the point of Fairness and Reciprocity as foundations of morals.

And no one in this world is truly qualified to judge what is right and wrong. What is just for some is not for others - the Tokyo War Crime Trials are a perfect example. Japanese war criminals were tried, but the ones who ordered the fire-bombing of Japanese cities and the nuclear attacks were not - what the lone dissenting judge, Radhabinod Pal, described as 'a sword wrapped in the toga of justice'.

Of course we can judge what is right and what is wrong. Saying that something is relative doesn't mean it cannot be judged accuratly, in fact something can only be judged at all if it's in a relative position to it's judge. At an individual level it"s rather easy, in most cases. Culture tends to make us more sensitive to some good and evils, while become less to others, but complete insensitivity usually comes from trauma, or in very rare cases, birth defects (natural psychopaths are very very rare, but exists). That those judgements end up in actions in societies, that's a different thing. Often, judgements will simply fall flat at some institution's feet, like the military, or the government, who has found ways of deresponsibilising itself.

The best we can come to true justice is to place the interests of the greater community, in our case, our respective nations, above that of individuals or even other nations.

Wait. No. Nooooooo. Society isn't a being of which we are the parts and must align ourselves to it's needs. It's a medium that we've created so that we can prosper in it. Society exists for the individual, not the contrary.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Wait. No. Nooooooo. Society isn't a being of which we are the parts and must align ourselves to it's needs. It's a medium that we've created so that we can prosper in it. Society exists for the individual, not the contrary.

Only in the West. Here in Asia, the individual and his/her needs are subordinated to the needs of the greater community. We Asians prefer to think as 'we' as opposed to 'I'. Don't be racist and attempt to impose Western cultural values on Orientals. The cultural difference between our world views is as the difference between Eldar and Human. The greatest examples are the Asian monarchs - like the Japanese Emperor or the Thai King - are absolute in a way that Western Monarchs could never be. They are the people, and the people are they. An attack on the monarch is an attack on the people - hence General Macarthur absolutely refusing to indict the Japanese Emperor and restart WWII with nothing less than the ultimate insult and disrespect to an entire nation and its culture - and an attack on the people is an attack on the monarch. Constitution or not, should the Japanese Emperor or the Thai King make use of their rarely used absolute power, all Japanese/Thais will bow. There will be no questioning. Unlike in the West, our monarchs are ABSOLUTE. We do not question or criticize them. They in turn have complete power over us, but this is rarely (if ever) used except in the most imperative situations.

Tadashi wrote:Only in the West. Here in Asia, the individual and his/her needs are subordinated to the needs of the greater community. We Asians prefer to think as 'we' as opposed to 'I'. Don't be racist and attempt to impose Western cultural values on Orientals.

That wouldn't be racism, even if it was simply western value propaganda. And it isn't. Don't be insulting and devalue the intellectual worth of what I've said with trite attacks. The prevailing analogy in the West is still the organic one (or mechanic). Society is a being, or a machine, in which the individuals are the parts or members, that must align themselves with the intent of the whole. The opposite side which you dismiss as Western-centric is individualism, and simply deny the use of natural analogies to describe society. To individualists, there's each individuals and then there's the mass of said individuals, which must form a social contract to reduce the potential of conflict between each egos.

What I've offered as an analogy is a midway solution : society is the constructed habitat of mankind, like a fish tank or a spider's web. Individuals are required to build this habitat for no other reason that it's in our genetic and cultural makeup, and that if they don't they will perish or end up in a subhuman state. The advantage of this analogy is that it retains the individuals primacy, which cannot be denied for obvious biological reasons : the self is individual, and the society is an agregate, a group formed by simple additionnal numeration. It also allows for an explanation of social reciprocity which goes beyond, ''if you don't do this for me we might end up at war so do this''.

The cultural difference between our world views is as the difference between Eldar and Human. The greatest examples are the Asian monarchs - like the Japanese Emperor or the Thai King - are absolute in a way that Western Monarchs could never be. They are the people, and the people are they. An attack on the monarch is an attack on the people - hence General Macarthur absolutely refusing to indict the Japanese Emperor and restart WWII with nothing less than the ultimate insult and disrespect to an entire nation and its culture - and an attack on the people is an attack on the monarch. Constitution or not, should the Japanese Emperor or the Thai King make use of their rarely used absolute power, all Japanese/Thais will bow. There will be no questioning. Unlike in the West, our monarchs are ABSOLUTE. We do not question or criticize them. They in turn have complete power over us, but this is rarely (if ever) used except in the most imperative situations.

Herm everything you've just described was claimed as much by the European monarchs which subscribed to absolute monarchism? I don't know what to say, except suggest to read the Leviathan? I'm also unsure about what I seem to be reading as pride to be subserviant to an entity which you've probably never met and certainly cannot know well enough to know that he has your best interest at heart.

Tadashi wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Wait. No. Nooooooo. Society isn't a being of which we are the parts and must align ourselves to it's needs. It's a medium that we've created so that we can prosper in it. Society exists for the individual, not the contrary.

Only in the West. Here in Asia, the individual and his/her needs are subordinated to the needs of the greater community. We Asians prefer to think as 'we' as opposed to 'I'. Don't be racist and attempt to impose Western cultural values on Orientals.

What?

No. Society has undergone massive paradigm shifts in the west as well as the east. Unless you think the Japanese Emperor was always the seat of power in Japan, or the Chinese have always been socialists?

Society is a catch-all word for 'the way we all get along' and it can change drastically and quickly no matter where in the world it is located.

Kaldor wrote:
No. Society has undergone massive paradigm shifts in the west as well as the east. Unless you think the Japanese Emperor was always the seat of power in Japan, or the Chinese have always been socialists?

Yes, the Emperor has always been the source off all power in Japan. Even the Shoguns governed in the Emperor's name. That's the reason why Japan has no dynasties - because only that family can hold the absolute power that makes Japan Japan.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Herm everything you've just described was claimed as much by the European monarchs which subscribed to absolute monarchism? I don't know what to say, except suggest to read the Leviathan? I'm also unsure about what I seem to be reading as pride to be subserviant to an entity which you've probably never met and certainly cannot know well enough to know that he has your best interest at heart.

Sorry, but its so ingrained in my people's cultural collective that to remove it would effectively make us cease to exist. Not even the vaunted General Macarthur dared touch that authority - he never met the Showa Emperor, he was granted audiences.

No. Japan is a modern state. Modern states have only one repository of power, the constitutive assembly, and only one foundation to that power, and it's the people. Here, let me quote you your constitution :

government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people.

The emperor of Japan is nothing more than a ceremonial Head of the State, in exactly the same capacities as the Queen of England for Canada. On top of things, he is possibly even less powerful than the Queen is, in the sense that it's still debated if the Queen is a constitutional monarch in regards to Canada, and would thus retain reserve powers. It's pretty clear, since the rapatriation of the constitution, that she isn't, but it's still under debate for some. Your constitution clearly states that the emperor doesn't have any reserve power.

Kovnik Obama wrote:No. Japan is a modern state. Modern states have only one repository of power, the constitutive assembly, and only one foundation to that power, and it's the people. Here, let me quote you your constitution :

government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people.

The emperor of Japan is nothing more than a ceremonial Head of the State, in exactly the same capacities as the Queen of England for Canada. On top of things, he is possibly even less powerful than the Queen is, in the sense that it's still debated if the Queen is a constitutional monarch in regards to Canada, and would thus retain reserve powers. It's pretty clear, since the rapatriation of the constitution, that she isn't, but it's still under debate for some. Your constitution clearly states that the emperor doesn't have any reserve power.

Wrong again. That constitution was written by foreigners and imposed on us simply because the Showa Emperor accepted it. Culturally, the Emperor is still absolute, constitution or not. Try talking to my grandmother and father, both of whom grew up in Japan, and were the ones who taught me the difference in how Japan appears to the world, and how we really are.

Tadashi wrote:Yes, the Emperor has always been the source off all power in Japan. Even the Shoguns governed in the Emperor's name. That's the reason why Japan has no dynasties - because only that family can hold the absolute power that makes Japan Japan.

Even the most cursory examination of Japanese history puts the lie to your words.

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Yes, the Emperor has always been the source off all power in Japan. Even the Shoguns governed in the Emperor's name. That's the reason why Japan has no dynasties - because only that family can hold the absolute power that makes Japan Japan.

Even the most cursory examination of Japanese history puts the lie to your words.

Then pray tell, why does the same family hold the absolute power of the Crysanthemum Throne for over a thousand years, and why none of the many warlords of our past dared take the throne if they were not the ultimate center of authority within the Japanese Empire?

Tadashi wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Tadashi wrote:Yes, the Emperor has always been the source off all power in Japan. Even the Shoguns governed in the Emperor's name. That's the reason why Japan has no dynasties - because only that family can hold the absolute power that makes Japan Japan.

Even the most cursory examination of Japanese history puts the lie to your words.

Then pray tell, why does the same family hold the absolute power of the Crysanthemum Throne for over a thousand years, and why none of the many warlords of our past dared take the throne if they were not the ultimate center of authority within the Japanese Empire?

Because they didn't need to. The Shoguns held absolute power without the need to claim themselves Emperor.

Tadashi wrote:
Wrong again. That constitution was written by foreigners and imposed on us simply because the Showa Emperor accepted it. Culturally, the Emperor is still absolute, constitution or not. Try talking to my grandmother and father, both of whom grew up in Japan, and were the ones who taught me the difference in how Japan appears to the world, and how we really are.

First the MacArthur draft was modified by the japanese commission before being accepted. So it wasn't imposed, as let's say, coerced into it's current form, and then accepted. And said coercition was for the benefit of the japanese, unless you think that women should not be allowed to vote. Secondly, an imposed constitution which has been observed and voted upon for over 60 years doesn't quite qualify as imposed anymore. Time and proof of effectivity gives legitimacy. 3 generations of japanese have enacted this constitution, regardless of your grandparent's opinion on it.

Third, grandparents and parents are usually not the best source of information on current cultural trends.

I bet the Philippinos must really love you when you tell them that your country is still sworn to the man who ordered the mass rapes and massacres of their grandparents...

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
Wrong again. That constitution was written by foreigners and imposed on us simply because the Showa Emperor accepted it. Culturally, the Emperor is still absolute, constitution or not. Try talking to my grandmother and father, both of whom grew up in Japan, and were the ones who taught me the difference in how Japan appears to the world, and how we really are.

First the MacArthur draft was modified by the japanese commission before being accepted. So it wasn't imposed, as let's say, coerced into it's current form, and then accepted. And said coercition was for the benefit of the japanese, unless you think that women should not be allowed to vote. Secondly, an imposed constitution which has been observed and voted upon for over 60 years doesn't quite qualify as imposed anymore. Time and proof of effectivity gives legitimacy. 3 generations of japanese have enacted this constitution, regardless of your grandparent's opinion on it.

Third, grandparents and parents are usually not the best source of information on current cultural trends.

I bet the Philippinos must really love you when you tell them that your country is still sworn to the man who ordered the mass rapes and massacres of their grandparents...

They don't care. I know, because my mother and friends are Filipinos, and unlike Westerners, they know that Japan has always been, and will always be, an autocracy in all but practice. Just as Japan will not act on old grudges (unless you force us to - we have the naval and industrial potential to become the dominant naval power in the West Pacific), neither will the Philippines.

This will be my last post on the matter of the Japanese Emperor - you cannot, and will never understand why we accept the cultural and traditional absolutism of the Crysanthemum Throne. You can know, but you will never understand, just as Humans will never truly understand Eldar. In fact, who are you to question over one thousand years of culture, history, and tradition?

Tadashi wrote:This will be my last post on the matter of the Japanese Emperor - you cannot, and will never understand why we accept the cultural and traditional absolutism of the Crysanthemum Throne. You can know, but you will never understand, just as Humans will never truly understand Eldar. In fact, who are you to question over one thousand years of culture, history, and tradition?

Don't be ridiculous. Are Japanese brains fundamentally different to Western brains?

Japanese society has undergone massive paradigm shifts throughout it's history because, just like everyone else in the world, Japanese people are humans and will change their 'society' as they see fit.

There's nothing unique or special about the Japanese people. They're just humans like the rest of us.

Tadashi wrote:They don't care.

Hum. Tell that to my first girlfriend, who'se grandmother told me how she was raped by 7 japanese soldiers after they had murdered her husband (yeah that made great supper time conversation).

This will be my last post on the matter of the Japanese Emperor - you cannot, and will never understand why we accept the cultural and traditional absolutism of the Crysanthemum Throne.

True, I cannot understand why an adult human being would make himself subserviant to a being of equal worth and equal nature. Not because I'm culturally or physically unable to understand, but because the obvious logic gap in such an attitude should appears to anyone with a modicum of education. It's not a cultural thing, or at least not in it's form. It's simply that such an attitude is less than optimal for any remotly evolved living being. We aren't ants. Dogs are only so subserviant because naturally, for hundreds of generations, such an arrangement has been to their advantage. Please point me to obvious advantage, derived from your voluntary slavery, that japanese have over ''gaijin'' ?

You can know, but you will never understand, just as Humans will never truly understand Eldar.

Okay I didn't reply to the first 'human to eldar as westerner to asians' comparison you made, but this is just stupid. I mean, this is stupid and racist. Japanese, or asians, are in no way a monolithic group. They do not show any particular characteristics, as a group, culturally, that distinguishes them from westerners. Your cultural paradigms are in no was inaccessible to our understanding ; like I showed you, we also had a theory of absolute monarchism. It's been discarded because, as history shows, tyranny isn't an optimal form of social organisation.

In fact, who are you to question over one thousand years of culture, history, and tradition?

A rational, mature human being. More importantly, who are you NOT to question over one thousand years of culture, history, and tradition, when the disastrous consequences of said history and culture led your people in some of the most devastating wars Asia has seen?