A ringleader in a global monkey torture network exposed by the BBC has been charged by US federal prosecutors.

Michael Macartney, 50, who went by the alias “Torture King”, was charged in Virginia with conspiracy to create and distribute animal-crushing videos.

Mr Macartney was one of three key distributors identified by the BBC Eye team during a year-long investigation into sadistic monkey torture groups.

Two women have also been charged in the UK following the investigation.

Warning: This article contains disturbing content

Mr Macartney, a former motorcycle gang member who previously spent time in prison, ran several chat groups for monkey torture enthusiasts from around the world on the encrypted messaging app Telegram.

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    No, he’s saying that I am POSTULATING things that are actually facts.

    Postulating that members of a species should be shot because they otherwise destroy the environment

    which is in contradiction with your pseudobabble:

    the postulate is that the appropriate response is to cull that species.

    No-one has talked about culling at any point. They are saying that I am MERELY POSTULATING that hunting is indeed beneficial for the environment, whereas in reality, I am observing a fact.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        You accidentally ignored the more important part.

        #They are saying that I am MERELY POSTULATING that hunting is indeed beneficial for the environment, whereas in reality, I am observing a fact.

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Just like he’s avoiding the mistake, so now are you.

            I did not postulate anything, nor did they postulate anything. They were wrong in saying I “postulated” something and you were wrong in thinking they postulated something. No-one postulated anything. I stated a fact.

            • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              It seems like you are avoiding acknowledging that shooting deer for population management is culling. So someone did at some point talk about it. Right?

              There is a postulate. The postulate is that shooting is the course of action to be taken to achieve population management.

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Kids these days, smh. You think you have some sort of semantic gotcha. You don’t. Population management and culling are two different things, just like propagating a plant and harvesting it are. Propagation also involves harvesting, as where would you keep the seeds otherwise? Thus population control indeed includes but isn’t limited to culling.

                And all of that is completely irrelevant. “BUT WHAT ABOUT”

                but what about if you actually talked about the argument at hand?

                There is no postulate. They are saying that I postulated a thing. I did not. I stated a fact. “Postulate” connotates that something has been theorised, but not proven. I didn’t suggest or assume the existence of something, I stated it. Deer population control is necessary for the continued survival of the ecology where the deer and us humans live.

                It’s an irrefutable fact, and something which happens to piss off vegans.

                • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  So what is the distinction that makes shooting deer not culling?

                  I did talk about the argument at hand.

                  “There is a postulate. The postulate is that shooting is the course of action to be taken to achieve population management.”

                  Deer population control is necessary but shooting deer is not the only way to achieve it. I think it’s the only practical way but it’s not the only way. The postulate, or premise of a train of reasoning, that you proposed was hunting deer and commendably not wasting what could be harvested from them. Go with the denotation.

                  Kids these days indeed.

                  • Dasus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    I linked a wikipedia article title “DEER MANAGEMENT”, not “deer hunting.” Are these terms confusing for you? Having trouble with categories?

                    There is no postulate. There is a statement of fact. The fact is that without deer management (which yes, includes the hunters who cull the population if necessary, but also nurture it with feeding places and most of all, observe), the populations go haywire, causing severe ecological disturbance affecting dozens if not hundreds of species of plants and animals and reducing traffic safety for people due to increased risk of collisions with deer.

                    Those are facts. Verifiable, irrefutable, facts. The people who originally started those theories may have postulated things. I did not. I relayed facts.