- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- globalnews
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- globalnews
- [email protected]
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.
“Postulate”: suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
I do not postulate that overpopulation of deer will destroy entire environments. It’s a cold hard fact which you wish to ignore.
You missed the joke they were making. It’s not questioning if deer have an ecological impact, it’s about what to do with species that have a negative ecological impact. The thin ice being that if we apply that logic to deer then what if it’s applied to us.
I did not miss it.
I explicitly addressed it, and trying to get out of having said something moronic by “b-b-but humans have negative effects so deer overpopulation isn’t actually a real thing” isn’t a joke, it’s a bad attempt at evading the topic.
That part makes it sound like you missed it because they were not questioning if deer have an ecological impact.
No, they’re IGNORING it, like I said.
Which is why I’m reiterating it.
Then why stress the use of postulate?
Perhaps you should try re-reading the thread. They wrote:
To which I replied that they don’t understand the meaning of the word “postulate”, as no-one has postulated anything. They don’t argue that, because they can’t argue the facts I linked, so they get pissy and start whatabouting about completely irrelevant things, which you then defend as “a joke”, which it was not.
I think you are still not getting their meaning. Given a species that has a negative impact on ecology the postulate is that the appropriate response is to cull that species. A pragmatic stance. But when generalized instead of specifying deer and when taking into consideration the negative impact that large populations of humans have we get to the “thin ice”. Yes it’s still deflecting from addressing your point but they were not denying the damage that deer can do and a postulate was made.
No, he’s saying that I am POSTULATING things that are actually facts.
which is in contradiction with your pseudobabble:
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.
Its not whataboutism. If you want to apply “killing is good against individuals of a species responsible for environmental destruction” then you should apply it to the biggest offender. Or be a hypocrite I guess. Your choice.
There’s nothing hypocritical about it.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, didn’t your mommy ever teach you that?
That is literally whataboutism.
Deer population has to be managed, or entire environments will die. You won’t get out of that being a fact by going “well but what about corporate pollution?!1?”
If you were accused of murder and asked to provide an alibi, you wouldn’t get off by saying “well what about Jeffrey Dahmer?”
You seem to purposefully miss the point. Have fun with that I guess 🤷
You are quite literally purposefully ignoring the actual argument that you engaged with yourself.
No-one postulated anything.
It’s an irrefutable fact that deer population control saves human and animal lives. You can’t even acknowledge that.