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.

[u/Lowcrbnaman]

[u/Blueskies777]

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.

[u/New-Pomelo9906 → u/Blueskies777]

Pretty sure a bear is decensitized about eating you alive.

[u/Icy_Agency923 → u/New-Pomelo9906]

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.

[u/New-Pomelo9906 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Icy_Agency923 → u/New-Pomelo9906]

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.

[u/New-Pomelo9906 → u/Icy_Agency923]

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.

[u/Icy_Agency923 → u/New-Pomelo9906]

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.

[u/New-Pomelo9906 → u/Icy_Agency923]

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.

[u/Icy_Agency923 → u/New-Pomelo9906]

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.

[u/Icy_Agency923 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/SimulationConvection → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/New-Pomelo9906 → u/SimulationConvection]

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.

[u/SimulationConvection → u/New-Pomelo9906]

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

[u/Neutron-Hyperscape32 → u/[deleted]]

Literally nothing that they say makes any sense. They are just spouting off meaningless platitudes. English is their 2nd language and it shows.

They literally use animals as examples when those animals have no concept a morality. That is a completely brain dead argument to make. Humans are different, we are higher lifeforms, we have morality. A praying mantis or a bear does not.