Michael Macartney, 50, confessed to the BBC his role in an extreme monkey torture network.

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.

  • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
    21·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      12·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
        11·
        8 months ago

        I do not postulate that overpopulation of deer will destroy entire environments. It’s a cold hard fact which you wish to ignore.

        That part makes it sound like you missed it because they were not questioning if deer have an ecological impact.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          12·
          8 months ago

          No, they’re IGNORING it, like I said.

          Which is why I’m reiterating it.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              11·
              8 months ago

              Perhaps you should try re-reading the thread. They wrote:

              Postulating that members of a species should be shot because they otherwise destroy the environment is thin fucking ice as a human lol

              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.

              • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
                2·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  8 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.