What?

Your modern perspective has narrowed your viewpoint down to a pin prick. You're looking for offense and negativity where there isn't any. The people of this time are long dead. Their names are forgotten. Their crimes no longer matter.

Yet you, some how, have enough insight to push this perspective down on them. You cant take a slice of the modern political discourse, take it to an extreme and shove it down on top of everything. This sort of thing is what leads to culture washing, its very 1984.

Seneca wrote about slavery (not totally on board) as did Aristotle (gung ho).

I'm pretty sure your average literate roman would have been against his own slavery (being enslaved probably doesn't do wonders for one's auctoritas); the difference was that asymmetric relationships, "laws for thee, not for me", were a little more acceptable then than now.

Sure.

There is a doctrine in law called the fruit of the poison tree.

That evidence that was obtained illegally (even with a fair degree of removal) is not valid.

I want that as a defendant.

Pernkopf Atlas is a thing, its origins are tainted, we all know it. Yet it's still used. It is very much the fruit of a poison tree. Even if the externalities are awful there is still lots of intrinsic value there. Nothing in the world is free of that taint, and if it is all that one seeks then were going to have to burn everything.

It may be relevant that 'fruit of the poisonous tree' is not a general law principle but rather a doctrine specific to modern U.S. law, established only in early 20th century as a specific interpretation of the 4th amendment to the U.S. constitution - the evidence policy is entirely opposite in most (possibly even all? It's hard to tell) other places worldwide as well as in classic (e.g. Roman) law, prioritizing the role of evidence in demonstrating truth and facts, and if some person or organization performed an offense in obtaining it, they should be prosecuted separately for that offense, but it doesn't by itself disqualify the evidence.

OK, now I'm utterly confused: I had meant to refute the claim that discussion of slavery was a purely modern thing by providing counterexamples of ancients who had found that economic system worthy of reflection and discussion, so I fail to see how introducing yet another modern (parochial, yet!) thing may be relevant?

(enthymemes can be effective, but they are utterly reliant on people knowing what the hell your middle term may be)

Your allegations seem unsubstantiated by the text of the comment to which you're responding.

Can you point out examples of where op is "looking for offense and negativity"?

The post they are responding to:

>>> When looking at frescoes I like to ask, why did the homeowner (r whomever made these decisions) choose these images/themes for this context?

>> They were topics considered more appropriate for a social setting.

IS their answer:

Then adds:

>>> That they were really about rape and kidnapping was probably not seen as notable;

It's an interesting aspect of the story to pick out. Of all the parts this is what the poster chose. It's surfacing only the worst parts of the narrative.

>>> they are just familiar furnishings of a culture founded and maintained on armed compulsion.

Are they? Is the the sum total of the output of the Roman Empire. Or is just this a very modern politics take on the worst parts of history?

> Nobody but the gods have any freedom, and the gods are bored children.

Wow, nobody had freedom? The gods in Rome and Greece didn't have narrative, parable and moral tales too?

Were having a conversation about history, having an opinion is one thing. This reads like it's a modern culture war tweet... "looking for offense and negativity" seems fairly accurate. Really it's a modern, narrow, reductionist point of view that only takes on the most negative of perspectives to get attention and send some social signals.

You are the only one here enforcing a personal agenda. I have as much right to call attention to the coercivity manifest in all the images as you would to call attention to their color scheme. But instead of calling attention to the color scheme or whatever interests you, you try to shame me for saying what I notice about them.

I understand from this that you consider coercive interactions and slavery to be such a normal part of your world as to be unworthy of comment.

Pretending that people of the time bearing under the crushing burden of slavery did not suffer for it is the culture-washing. They were fully aware of their status, and would have spit on your complaint.

All civilizations are fundamentally based on armed compulsion. That's not a great way of understanding the difference between our modern culture and the Roman world.

A more useful way to delineate would be to say that Romans lived in a world where "might makes right" was the unquestioned order of the universe. The weak were trod underfoot and that was the way of the world. In modernity, we have a shared assumption that is very different, which is that even the weakest among us have a basic right to dignity and freedom. That was not an assumption that existed until after Christianity and its philosophies had fully taken root.

Conceded. Anyway the Romans were unpleasant neighbors and worse hosts. But I do not credit Christianity for recognition of rights to dignity and freedom. The Church has much more commonly been a supporter of oppression, starting as the official religious organ of the Roman Empire itsel. Only in recent centuries have breakaway sects adopted enlightenment values from secular culture.

>A more useful way to delineate would be to say that Romans lived in a world where "might makes right" was the unquestioned order of the universe.

It was the common belief and enshrined in many Roman practices, but it was far from the unquestioned order of the day. Multiple Roman emperors, from Augustus onward created laws that went directly contrary to the idea of might always making right. One notable example of this is an emperor that everyone knows, Marcus Aurelius, but an even better case in point would be his impressive mentor, Titus Antoninus Pius, quite possibly the best and most humane emperor that Rome ever had.

He ruled longer than any emperor except for Augustus, up until his own death, but is little known of by the public in modern times, partly, I suspect, due to the sheer calmness of his rule, lacking as it was in major bloody events or notable acts of repression. He also made many sincere efforts to humanize and liberalize legal procedure in favor of ordinary people and even slaves, instead of the opposite. The devil is indeed in the details, or in this case, maybe a few minor angels were found there instead.

Also worth noting is that compared to most of the contemporary civilizations that surrounded them, the Romans' society was positively enlightened by the standards of the time. This may not seem like much, but when you compare Roman pretensions to moderate, ordered rule with the brutality of places like northern Europe, it was more than nothing for that time. It wasn't just by violence that Romans were so successful at Romanizing other people, these people themselves often willfully accepted Roman practices. In some ways, it reminds one of charismatic future societies like those of the British Empire and the United States today.