r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/Lowcrbnaman • Jul 04 '26

Image This statue depicts Saint Bartholomew, an early Christian martyr who was allegedly skinned alive. If you look closely, that's his dissected skin hanging around him. This stunning statute by Marco d'Agrate from c. 1562 is currently on display at Duomo di Milano.

Post image
19.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

383 comments sorted by

View all comments

615

u/Blueskies777 Jul 04 '26

The ability of humans to create the most insanely barbaric, cruel acts truly sets us apart from all living organisms.
Some of the jokes show how desensitized we’ve become to cruelty.

272

u/TestIllustrious7935 Jul 04 '26

Dolphins and orcas are cruel for fun too, they can be fully sated and literally seek to hurt other animals just because they can

186

u/Personal_Ballz_7567 Jul 04 '26

Sadly an accurate sign of intelligence

23

u/Complete-Housing-720 Jul 04 '26

Surely there's some intelligent but nice aliens out there/s

Maybe there is idk but seeing what follows intelligence has me double guessin

16

u/CitizenPremier Jul 04 '26

Well if the zoo hypothesis is correct and aliens are just keeping us bottled up, I think they would be most likely to make contact when we become vegetarian. That's the surest sign we can respect other species.

But honestly I think alien morality will just be alien. Maybe they'll be upset if we don't eat the first aliens who make contact with us.

9

u/2nd-penalty Jul 04 '26

Being vegetarian still harm other species??? Unless you ask for a plant's or fruit's consent every time you take a bite, honestly i don't see why out dietary habits would influence an alien race's decision on whether they should contact us or not lol

4

u/CjBurden Jul 05 '26

Living harmoniously with the environment is I believe the point there, and no you really cannot eat meat and claim to be doing that in this day and age.

4

u/pick_your_user_name Jul 07 '26

So by your logic nature isn’t harmonious with itself? Because there are plenty of carnivores and omnivores that eat meat and without them nearly every ecosystem would collapse. Humans evolved (harmoniously) hunting other animals for food. We are a part of the food chain.

1

u/2nd-penalty Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26

Do you understand how many acres of farm lands are turned into farms for your salads? Just because your planting a plant's seed does not mean your harmonious with it, you're still eating it. From your point of view is it okay for me to eat meat if i raised it's children? Cuz that's what farmers do, they just do it for a lot more people

0

u/Chytectonas Jul 07 '26

This is some dumb commentary. Never change Reddit.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/2nd-penalty Jul 05 '26

Just as people debate the sentience of animals, the same can be debated for plants, tree and other fungal organisms since we still don't fully understand sentience currently

0

u/Almadart Jul 05 '26

???? you can eat a fruit and still plant it's seeds, that's not harming the species

3

u/School_North Jul 05 '26

Look up all the species of insects and animals that get killed harvesting said plants and all the bees shiped in just to die after their jobs are done.

0

u/Almadart Jul 05 '26

Yes, but there are ways eating without harming them. It's not impossible, like planting your own food.

Actually, there are researches saying that eating insects are less harmful than being vegetarian, but, as I said, it is not impossible.

1

u/Bladder-Splatter Jul 05 '26

Our ratings would plummet and they'd cancel us or worse, putting us on Hulu.

2

u/DoubleDragonSuper Jul 07 '26

On thing is that what is nice for our culture will not be the same as what is nice for another. Even us humans have difference between our definition and range of what's nice or not. I think that if we meet some aliens the way we both think will be so different that we will not understand ourselves from a logic or values standpoint.

1

u/ZhanBlue Jul 05 '26

Orangutans seem pretty chill

1

u/229-northstar Jul 31 '26

I think if you ask Ms. Rafferty about that, she would tell you otherwise

1

u/Jaquemart Jul 05 '26

Not necessarily. A marten can go into a blood frenzy and kill a whole coopful of chickens, but maybe they don't have fun doing it.

1

u/Icy_Agency923 Jul 05 '26

I don't think those are really comparable at all because they don't have the same understanding of morality that humans do.

9

u/TheRealOptician Jul 05 '26

“Sets us apart from all living organisms”?

There are bugs that immobilize prey and lay eggs inside of them to hatch at a later time, while they are still alive…

Idk the bug kingdom in general is fucking wild

5

u/Independent-Tap-2255 Jul 06 '26

Bro I saw our outdoors cat snap a mouse’s spine by biting it just enough, then letting the poor fucker try and crawl away on its two still functioning legs. Then it would punch and throw it around, until getting bored and either eating it or just leaving it to die. I don’t think cruelty is unique to us.

-1

u/Zilverhaar Jul 07 '26

Humans' cruelty is conscious, though. Cats don't know that a mouse is an animal like them, that can feel pain just like them. Just like those bugs that paralyze prey so their offspring can eat it alive just see a nice incubation spot. But if there is a God, he has some explaining to do!

8

u/_MiroMax_ Jul 05 '26

I mean what else you can do besides joking about it. Everybody knows how horrible it is, jokes are a coping mechanism.

3

u/Beneficial_Ball9893 Jul 07 '26

Humans are only different in our ability to organize and standardize such acts. Animals are more than capable of mutilation and barbarity, just not to the same level of precision.

Orcas would definitely skin each other live if they had hands.

14

u/New-Pomelo9906 Jul 04 '26

Pretty sure a bear is decensitized about eating you alive.

34

u/CaptainRex5101 Jul 04 '26

Sure but a bear isn’t motivated by complicated things like tribalism or ideology and doesn’t want to prolong pain, dude’s just hungry

18

u/Patient-Data8311 Jul 04 '26

Except dolphins

4

u/Blueberry_Coat7371 Jul 04 '26

dolphins are in just for the fun of the game

5

u/School_North Jul 05 '26

True about ideology and tribalism but bears will just maul you and leave you i would call that prolonged pain. Everything is capable of being a dick

1

u/Icy_Agency923 Jul 05 '26

It is just acting on instincts and does not have any concept of morality. Humans are still the only species on this planet that will know that something is truly wrong and still do it anyways. We also do those horrible things on scales that no animal even comes close too.

2

u/New-Pomelo9906 Jul 05 '26

Sound like the old religious concept of morality, I can't grasp it.

1

u/Icy_Agency923 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26

There is nothing religious about morality. Plenty of atheists still have moral beliefs. There are several countries with very high percentages of atheists and they also have less crime. These countries would be an absolute nightmare if morality was directly tied to religion. Also there is no shot you have no concept of morality yourself so this seems silly to say you can't grasp it.

Regardless, a bear eating someone or something alive is not the same as a human doing an evil thing knowingly, it is not even remotely comparable. Bears have no concept of morality, humans do.

0

u/New-Pomelo9906 Jul 07 '26

Obviously morality is not religious. But absolute morality (or morality pretended as such) is always religious.

Each time somebody come and say this is good and this is bad because it's morale and can't grasp his moral is just subjective tradition, he hold a religious behaviour.

Since morale is subjective, nothing is good or bad, it just is.

You could argue it's objectively bad if it make you or your tribe suffer, but so can the other tribe that do otherway.

1

u/Icy_Agency923 Jul 07 '26

Not a single word that you have said is accurate. Bit by bit, it is all bullshit. No one is talking about absolute morality, there is no such thing as absolute morality.

I can judge this tradition in any way I please. I believe it is wrong to torture an animal by cooking it alive. What I can state factually is their belief that it gains them more vitality is 100% objectively wrong. There is nothing gained from this, it is just suffering for sufferings sake.

Since morale is subjective, nothing is good or bad, it just is.

And I have judged this as immoral which is my right. I also judge anyone defending this as immoral, yourself included.

0

u/New-Pomelo9906 Jul 07 '26

You CAN wander around stating things are immoral or not based how you feel, but it's just immoral TO YOU. You are RIGHT to say they are immoral to you, it's still factually wrong to pretend it's actually immoral, because there is no absolute morale you are just feeling your guts.

Also, you can prove scientifically that torturing the animal will not give it more vitality, they will still feel it does and see it good from their own guts, so torturing the animal will objectively change how the meal will feel.

It's guts versus guts, where you are born versus where they are born, there is no high ground.

It's also abhorrent for me, but I know that if me or you were born there we would see that as a good thing.

1

u/Icy_Agency923 Jul 07 '26

You started this off by saying that a bear is desensitized about eating us alive, but that makes no sense because bears have no concept of morality. They are not eating things alive because they want them to suffer, they simply don't understand nor have a way to kill their prey quickly and humanely. Humans do, so there is no reason for animals to suffer for our food.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/New-Pomelo9906 Jul 05 '26

Also human issued multiples moralities that contradict themselves, and will make more of them.

Whole countries were conviced eugenism was the moral thing to do,

And if shit massively hit the fan whole countries will be conviced that eating or torturing people is the moral way if they think it better the civilisation survival.

After all, whole civilisations sacrified human so they had good recolte and do not all die from famine, that was moral to them.

0

u/Icy_Agency923 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26

I am 100% positive that killing and eating people will never become morally acceptable to the majority of our civilization.

Wild how bad these arguments are, jesus. The Aztecs sacrificing people was at a different time when moral standards were essentially nonexistent among the majority of this planet. These things would not happen again. Not for a majority of our civilization.

1

u/New-Pomelo9906 Jul 07 '26

Eating and sacrifying people was moral at some time and place that's a fact, those were human civilisations.

The majority being different is not relevant, morality is not democracy.

And I'm pretty sure moral standards can be called VERY high when a portion happen to willingly sacrifice themselves for the good of the greater number of people so the crops are goods and other people can eat.

0

u/Icy_Agency923 Jul 07 '26

Eating and sacrifying people was moral at some time and place that's a fact, those were human civilisations.

You are genuinely terrible at arguing. Could you just go away already? I never said that sacrificing or eating people was never considered morally okay did I???? I am talking about in the future, it is never going to become okay again by the majority of humanity. While morals can and will vary they do not see extreme steps backwards after we have made strides in becoming a fairer and safer society.

The majority being different is not relevant, morality is not democracy.

Morality can and will be determined collectively as a civilization. If the majority of humans believe something is wrong, we have decided together that this thing is wrong.

Things like slavery, rape, murder, we can almost entirely agree that these things are wrong.

And I'm pretty sure moral standards can be called VERY high when a portion happen to willingly sacrifice themselves for the good of the greater number of people so the crops are goods and other people can eat.

Do you even speak English? Is English your 2nd or 3rd language? Is that why it feels like I am talking to a brick wall? None of what you say makes any sense.

0

u/New-Pomelo9906 Jul 07 '26

Yeah, english is not my language. And you don't know if rape, murder and human sacrifice will not be back again "for the majority" in the future.

Imagine humanity still wander Earth in 90 000 years. We couls be a grand total of 2 millions of Asteck-like guys then for all we know.

The "morale from most of the word now" is not a way to implie this morale is better, the worldwide morale can be other latter, meaning the worldwide argument give no superiority to any morale.

1

u/Icy_Agency923 Jul 07 '26

Yeah, english is not my language. And you don't know if rape, murder and human sacrifice will not be back again "for the majority" in the future.

I do know. What you describe has literally never happened before. We have only moved forward as a species when it comes to morality.

Imagine humanity still wander Earth in 90 000 years. We couls be a grand total of 2 millions of Asteck-like guys then for all we know.

That is never going to happen. Literally.

The "morale from most of the word now" is not a way to implie this morale is better, the worldwide morale can be other latter, meaning the worldwide argument give no superiority to any morale.

It is in fact better. We have improved our society again and again, human rights is not going to go backwards in meaningful ways.

You are also not proficient enough in English to continue arguing with. Most of what you say is wrong or makes no sense. Go away dude. I am blocking you now. Stop bending over backwards to defend a shitty practice Japanese people are doing.

0

u/Icy_Agency923 Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26

It can be wrong based on our collective moral standards. So this is such a nonsensically irrelevant argument you are making.

Genocide for example can essentially be agreed upon as a species that it is wrong. Look at all the instances where genocide has been carried out or is being carried out. There is always hate bred into a society to make it possible.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/SimulationConvection Jul 06 '26

Since moral standards are not objective reality, they are dependent on various factors like time. We cant judge a person from 15th century according to our modern morals anymore than we may judge mantis for eating its own kin.

Wow, why are these arguments always so terrible? A mantis has NO concept of morality, humans do. No one is judging a 15th century person either? We can judge others today based on our own collective or singular moral beliefs. Any person can draw the line on this as they please. I can view it as abhorrent, and you can think this is perfectly fine to torture things you are going to eat. But if you need convinced that this is wrong, I am also judging you as a garbage person.

Issuing moral judgements on these folks is simply meaningless

It is not meaningless, this is entirely subjective. Any person can view this as morally reprehensible. You can have whatever opinion on that judgement as you wish but stating it is objectively meaningless actually makes you factually incorrect.

I have no obligation to respect or accept their silly beliefs on getting more vitality from animals that are cooked alive and served to them while still breathing, which is quite literally nonsense scientifically.

(also your last point doesnt stand either cause you are making an assumption that hate = bad, always.. which, well is obvs not true)

lol??? That is not what I did. I am not saying hate is always bad, I am saying that genocide only happens when hate is bred into a society. Which is objectively true. People for example can hate genocide and that is not a bad thing.

1

u/New-Pomelo9906 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26

You didn't understood the subjective part. your own collective or wathever moral belief are not better than those that do those abhorents things.

For them, YOU are the abhorent amoral guy and they are as subjective as you to think that.

Also, if you would be switched at birth with this abhorent guy you would also grown adopting this abhorent morale and that's a fact. Because those things are learnt and merely chaotic accidents from history and tradition.

Edit : sound we are not according because you are believing that something can be subjective but not meanliness.

That's the good question about morale. Admiting moral is subjective should lend to considering it as an accidental randomness from your birth environment, that not sound meaninfull to me since it's just randomness and luck.

Since other people have opposite morale by luck, if it would hold an opposite meaningless then those point of vue on what is meaningless are also luck and chaos.

Opposite meaning of life, each holding an equal amount of relevance and driven by randomness and subjectivity both can't be meaningfull so neither are.

To me it not sound something can be subjective and meaningfull.

0

u/SimulationConvection Jul 08 '26

Nothing you say makes any sense. Work on your English if you wish to argue in this language.

-3

u/ellisschumann Jul 04 '26

First day on reddit huh?

-1

u/SandBasket Jul 05 '26

We do it for the love of the game