OK, you cited a post defining "shisetsu" as "samurai integrity". Then you said (in the same post) "To apply a double standard shows a lack of shisetsu.".
Maybe you can explain it to me, but I really don't see how that does not refer to the samurai.
I did not define "shisetsu" as "samurai integrity". It is a direct quote from the Shido Yoron, that includes a translation of the word shisetsu.
My point was that having a double standard means a lack of integrity. The quote from the Shido Yoron was an illustration, an example of an expression that reflects the point that I had made.
It was not the beginning of an explanation or an argumentation on the ethics of Samurai in any historic period.
It is really not a matter of a "fine line of distinction". It is a matter of understanding argumentation, of seeing what you validly can counter-argue and what you cannot.
Perhaps another example makes it clearer to you.
Suppose that someone states; "Mr A always gives very laconic answers". Then you may counter with; "I know Mr. A very well as I work with him daily and his answers are always very elaborate". That is a valid counter argument. But you cannot counter with "the Spartans were really not that brave". And you cannot support it with "but laconic pertains to the Spartans", even though that in itself is true. That is because the statement does not really have anything to do with Spartans or their bravery. The statement is about Mr. A giving short and to the point answers.
I mean this in a serieus and sincere way; since I joined Aikiweb earlier this year, I have been reading quite a few of your posts. I get the impression that you desparately want to be right, no matter what - but you do not always have your facts right. Worse then that, you all too often come up with invalid argumentation or arguments that are completely of the mark, like in this discussion. You may want to ignore my advice, but personally I think it would be worth your while to make an effort to learn the skill of argumentation (for it is a skill).