- 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.
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.
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.
You know for some that seems to get pretty upset about people ignoring major points or conversations you do it a lot.
What is the distinction that makes shooting deer not culling?
Shooting deer, ya know? LIke you were talking about before you linked deer management.
The capital of Montana is Helena. That’s a fact. Verifiable, irrefutable, fact. Thought I’d mention that since you keep stating facts that no one is trying to refute.
I have at no point said hunting deer as a means of population control as a part of deer management doesn’t constitute culling. Perhaps you need to brush on your reading comprehension? As I said, you’re having problems with categories.
The reason I tried not engaging with your childish semantic argument is that it’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that, you said:
Which it isn’t, because I have at no point postulated that. I have stated the well supported fact that deer management (which includes culling) is crucial, and above all, it’s more moral than any other alternative, and it helps saves lives, both animal and human, by preserving the ecological balance of a given environment.
You’re just trying to make this into childish semantic bullshittery, because you made a mistake and can’t admit to it.
You also said this:
But you won’t be able to name another way to achieve it. Weird, huh? Almost like you were pulling these things out of your arse, huh?
Cool so shooting deer, like you where originally mentioning, does count as culling. And the type of population management that you started the conversation with is shooting deer. So when you said that no one was talking about culling that was nonsense wasn’t it? Because you were talking about culling.
Culling is an option for population management, one that you brought up and the one that the joke was referencing, but as you said yourself culling isn’t the only option of population management. Strange that you didn’t mention any other methods to manage population. Was that because you were pulling it out of your ass too?
Now you still seem confused. I’m not saying that deer management is not necessary. I’m not saying that culling is the only method. I did say that it is the most practical but I don’t think your reading skills caught that. Since you think offering an alternative method is important for some reason then how about sterilization? Wildly impractical but that would do the trick.
You are making the case that because it’s a fact that deer must be managed and that shooting them is the major practical method to achieve that goal, that it’s a good thing or at least a necessary thing to shoot deer. Shooting deer to manage the population. That’s a postulate. The line of reasoning that takes you from acknowledging a problem to selecting a solution. The hypothesis advanced as a premise of a train of thought.
Would you like to keep cranking up the hostility?
“No-one is talking about it” as in "you’re doing some pitiful semantic bullshit, because you ‘took sides’ in a random internet thread and found yourself on the losing side, and she’s not talking about it because she’s trying to change the subject to some pitiful whataboutist argument.
As I said, you really need to brush up on your reading practice.
Our “debate” seems to be over the fact that I presented facts and didn’t postulate a thing. Which is to say — offtopic.
Weird how you still haven’t managed to give a single example of those “other ways” there are to do it? Might it be because you’re a frustrated contrarian who doesn’t understand the subject he inserted himself into?
It isn’t a postulate. It’s an observation of facts I haven’t found myself. Presentation, if you will. I am not suggesting or assuming anything, which is the definition of “postulate.”
You on other hand have postulated that “there are other ways of population control besides hunting”, but weirdly, can’t present a single one. Triple-weirdly, I’ve now had to repeat this for several comments repeated that question, but you seem to avoid it on purpose. Is it perchance because there aren’t other ways, because you just made that up to sound good, which is why you added “hunting may be the most practical way” as a disclaimer so you can eat your words when you get called out on your BS?
“No-one has talked about culling at any point.” As in you literally said that.
If I took a side it was the side that culling is the practical method of managing deer. You assumed that I was disagreeing with you when I was just pointing out that you misunderstood that person.
Work on your reading skills because I did give you an example of an “other way”. Additionally work on your reasoning skills because me providing another way is off topic. And you already said yourself that culling was not the only way to manage deer population. You are contradicting yourself. You have to pick if you acknowledge that there are other ways, like you said previously or if you think that you have made some great point now about how there is no other conceivable way.
The postulate is that shooting deer is the practical acceptable solution to managing deer population. The necessity of deer management being a fact is closely related but distinct from making the connection to a method.
Read. I did give an alternative.
You thought I was disagreeing with you when I wasn’t. I’ve said from the start that deer culling is the practical way to manage deer population and that harvesting their meet is the commendable thing to do along with it. Calm down. Read. Learn to behave in a civil manner, especially if you want to go about implying other people are acting like kids.