Moderates don't Exist.

[Yukaphile]

And yet here we are. It can be used that way. And has been abused that way precisely. I don't see the Aztecs that way you seem to be implying, along the same line of guilt-shaming dialogue I've heard used over and over in the past to many such groups.

[Yukaphile]

To build off something you added earlier, "eating a willing victim" would amount to suicide, and YET... I think suicide in some instances is not that morally questionable. Like, taking a trauma victim to be treated is a noble goal, but it also just assumes the pain is something they can move past. Not everyone can. The BEST you can do for those people is numb it. Is living really worth it in those instances? When we all inevitably face the clock ticking forward? It's this weird schizophrenic contradiction I don't understand. If a trauma victim I knew had been in a mental ward for a year, and it still didn't help, I think, relieving their pain is the humanitarian thing to do, and enforcing our values on them is entirely biased.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

@clearspira & @Yukaphile ah yes, the moral relativist argument. Made even sweeter when it's used in defense of moral values the people making the argument would otherwise be against.

Well you were doing that in the Enterprise thread.

In the Enterprise Bound review thread? I just went and reread all my argument and all I can say is go read a fucking book, you have no idea what moral relativism is. I didn't hark on that in that thread because it was irelevant to the topic, but really, go here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism and read that page. And if after reading that you still think your accusation of moral relativism from that thread still stands, congrats, you have no critical thinking skills.

I took enough philosophy in college and kept up interest outside. I'm confident in my understanding of moral relativism. You come off as a major fucking asshole just based on communication alone. You can speak from a stilted intellectual perspective base all you like with posts 15 times longer than necessary. Just don't get irate about it when people's takes go astray from your own.

There's nothing in our discussion that warrants this shit from you to me or anyone else.

[Yukaphile]

It's kind of ironic, since I believe in a unifying human morality, and those who step outside it are lost. Finding your way back is not impossible, but it requires more hard work, time, dedication, and sweat and sacrifice than most people who step far enough outside it are ever willing to put in. It reminds me of something somebody I know had said recently, about inmates in jail repenting and "seeing God." No, they're not sorry for what they did. They're sorry they're going to hell. It's the conscience's inborn alert which had been suppressed by all the rationalizations they were doing.

[Antiboyscout]

FYI, your judgment upon Aztec sacrifices are a great case of looking at something with 21st century eyes. Do you know why they sacrificed people? Its because the WHOLE population, not just the leaders, believed that if they did not give their gods a periodic donation of blood then the whole world would end. Many sacrifices were completely willing for the simple reason that they believed themselves to be heroes who were dying for a higher cause. The 1% died so that the 99% could live. And you know what? Its a system that worked. The Aztecs lasted longer than many other civilizations have and would have lasted even longer if it wasn't for the Spanish. (And yes, I know that many were also unwilling, I am merely pointing out that you are being grossly unfair).

And just for the record, I agree that the notion of killing yourself to stop the apocalypse was stupid, but then again, I think all religion is stupid. Sacrificing yourself is from the exact same tree as prayer.

Considering how many subject nations joined the Spanish in overthrowing the Aztecs, I'm going to say no the whole population was not ok with what they were doing.

Is your argument really 'they thought they were saving the world there for it's ok'

You don't think Hitler thought he was saving the world? You think fascists and communists don't justify their actions somehow? Hey don't be so unfair, the Nazi's thought Judaeo-Bolshevism was going to destroy the world. Hey don't be so unfair, communists believe the bourgeoisie are standing in the way of utopia, and what wouldn't you do to reach utopia?

Or is it that you consider it suicide and that makes it ok. So if the Nazi's had convinced the jews to kill themselves that would make it ok.

[Darth Wedgius]

There is at least one ameliorating factor for the Aztecs.

https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/06/03

[MithrandirOlorin]

There have been AnarchoCommunist governments that never become oppressive or authoritarian, that only "failed' because a larger military shut them down. The Paris Commune and Catalnoia during the Spanish Civil War to name a few.

[Yukaphile]

The average Aztecs no doubt thought they were saving the world. Those from other tribes, big shocker, didn't feel that way. So this does not surprise me in the least. You're still blaming the average citizen for what the GOVERNMENT and the church is doing. My God, get off your high horse.

Never underestimate social engineering by the elite on the lower masses. NEVER.

[Yukaphile]

In this way, you're endorsing the violence that was brought to them. Not directly, perhaps, but it's along the same line of reasoning. More hyperbole like calling Berlin in 1945 "the den of evil," huh? Even though the same could literally be applied elsewhere.

[AlucardNoir]

I took enough philosophy in college and kept up interest outside. I'm confident in my understanding of moral relativism. You come off as a major fucking asshole just based on communication alone. You can speak from a stilted intellectual perspective base all you like with posts 15 times longer than necessary. Just don't get irate about it when people's takes go astray from your own.

There's nothing in our discussion that warrants this shit from you to me or anyone else.

But not confident enough to actually check and see I was in no way engaging in a moral relativist argument in the post you replied to in the Ent thread... I see.

As for why I'm so abrasive towards you, because you have repeatedly invited this behavior. Over the last month I've seen you either misinterpret what people wrote, write posts that had little to do with the thread you were replying to, engage in pedantry (this one I'm guilty of as well), or just reply to people with posts that made no sense given the conversation, or outright lie to suport a point - like in that Ent thread where you make a statement that is literally contradicted by the episode and when I pointed that out you tried hiding behind the idea of "miscommunication" - hint, that's not how that works.

You are either not a native english speaker that has done a poor job communicating his ideas and understanding what other people said or you are either stupid, a troll or simply like posting here at an hour where you are far too tired to think straight.

I don't know which one it is and I frankly don't care to find out any more.

@ Yukaphile I disagree with suicide on a moral level. To take your example, I think pain is bad but I think death is the worst possible outcome. I'm not "spiritual" and I am an atheist. I don't believe in reincarnations and an afterlife. I think we all have just one life. Once that ends that's that.

Pain is good in as far as it tells you you're still alive. But pain is bad. It's supposed to be bad. It's an evolutionary response meant to help us stay alive. Any stimuli that causes pain is something you'll want to avoid. Why? so we can stay alive for longer. Sometimes the system that causes pain can "backfire", from an evolutionary perspective. But "treating" pain with death is ... well, it goes against the very reason pain exists, to keep us alive for as long as possible by making us avoid it.

As long as you are alive there is always hope.

Also, My original post was about the AZTEC EMPIRE and when most people say AZTEC, they mean it like that. The same way when people say the NAZI's they might refer to just members of the NAZI party or they might be referring to the entire apparatus the NAZI controlled in Germany during WWII. And yes, that second meaning has slowly muddied the waters between NAZI and German living at the time of NAZI rule in Germany.