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.
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.
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?