I also don't like the Japanese script, because the kana don't match the kanji
Japanese has a different aesthetic appeal: the complexity of the script corresponds to the semantic density. Lexical words (nouns, verbs) are written in kanji, except for 'empty' (semantically bleached) words such as mono
'thing' and suru
'to do'. Function words and grammatical inflections are written in kana, which at least in calligraphy flow quite nicely into and out of the kanji. Your eye automatically focuses on the blocks of greater density, which is where the lexical information lies, and these are strung together with the lighter kana, which show how they relate to each other. So in a sense Japanese biscript is quite iconic, which I find beautiful. (Except for English words in katakana, which are ugly.) I don't care for Chinese, because there even the most empty words, like ah!,
are graphically complex. (But then, for someone raised on Chinese, the Latin alphabet looks like Morse code, and must seem an atrocious script.)
And why do people typesetting Japanese and Chinese use such ugly fonts, with those stupid triangular serifs at the end of each stroke, when there are so many absolutely gorgeous Chinese fonts out there?
I don't care for Cyrillic, because all the letters look the same: hardly any ascenders or descenders. Not so bad in handwriting, as people add underscores and overscores, but in print most words are simple blocks, like Latin written in all caps. You just don't have the word shapes you do with Latin minuscules, which I'd think would hinder reading fluency. Printed Hebrew (but not Hebrew handwriting) would seem to have the same problem, though I'm not as familiar with it.
And Persian/Urdu is just gorgeous. But Arabic is an impractical script in many ways, if practicality is desired. No good for fine print: the ingredients listed on a can have to be in a much larger type size when they're in Arabic than when in most other scripts. Thoroughly impractical when the font size it too small to make out the consonant pointing and you're trying to be brief (i.e. provide little context) in order to save space. But then, maybe a lack of fine print would be a good thing, with positive political consequences.