- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [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.
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.
Isn’t shooting deer to manage their population culling?
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.
So it is culling?
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.
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.
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.
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.