It's difficult to weigh the difference between two extreme bads, so I understand how you could come to that conclusion. However "don't say anything on this list of things not to say" is an order that could at least by choice be complied with. Imagine yourself in Europe and also in Central America. Would you rather live under the fear of heresy laws or under the fear of human sacrifice? In the former case you could choose between complying with the unjust ruler or standing up to them, in the latter, you just die.

I'm curious about how much do we actually know about was picked for sacrifice under the aztec rule. It seems like there is a consensus on this thread that all were innocent common citizens, but a lot of documentation shows that at least a sizeable portion of sacrifices were prisoners of war.

This doesnt make it morally more excusable, but it tempers your point as not everyone was a potential target of sacrifice.

Honestly, if you gave me a choice between living in the Aztec Empire or in Spain in 1500, I would pick the Aztecs. Probably even knowing what was going to happen in 20 years and knowing that I would be alive for it.

One would probably have better odds of living for 20 years in the Aztec empire (assuming you were a member of the ruling ethnicity).

Tenochtitlán is said to have been a beautiful city of floating gardens. In Madrid, shit flowed in open sewers on sidewalks.

"Would you rather live under the fear of heresy laws or under the fear of human sacrifice?" citations needed