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.

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    “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?

    Shooting deer to manage the population. That’s a postulate.

    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?

    • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      “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.