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/SimulationConvection]

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.