Ringleader of global monkey torture network, 'The Torture King', is charged
Ringleader of global monkey torture network, 'The Torture King', is charged
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Postulating that members of a species should be shot because they otherwise destroy the environment is thin fucking ice as a human lol
Postulating
I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.
Ecological Impacts of High Deer Densities
And in a simpler form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_management
Well, reintroducing predators would be a good way too. Most of Europe has no wild wolves.
BTW, I really like those movies about Chernobyl area, where they show how it has turned into one big natural reserve. Plenty of animals, plenty of plants. I know it was a catastrophe, but I really like wolves. Especially wild wolves living in such heaven that they don't fear the cameraman and behave like very smart and independent dogs.
"Reintroducing predators" I always find this equally ridiculous. Like first off. Why? In your weird value world, why does it matter if a hunter or a wolf kills the animal? Who does it make it better for? Certainly not the deer or the deer population, because wolves are notoriously bad at doing statistical analysis that the felling amounts are based on. Even if the wolves had their own researchers, they probably wouldn't understand "felling quotas", would they?
Okay, humour me: if you were sentenced to death, which of the following would you choose?
-
Being shot at some random time you won't even be aware about (in this hypothetical you agree to the execution and then get mindwiped so you won't know it's coming), with a single bullet that kills you instantly
-
A pack of wolves runs after you and tears you to shreds and eats you while you're alive.
Personally, I'm pretty sure that option number 2 is closer to torture than option number one.
"Most of Europe has no wild wolves. Do you think those areas don't have deer browsing them? Because they do, and those populations have to be controlled, and have been, by people, for centuries.
"They don't fear the cameraman and behave like very smart and inpendendent dogs"
No, they don't. They do not do that. Sigh. This is frustratingly naive of you. Betrays a deep lack of understanding of the difference between wolves and dogs, and even if they behaved like "smart and independent dogs", you'd actually allow them in population centres in Europe, and all because you feel like it's immoral that the deer are being shot instead of violently mauled to death?
Certainly not the deer or the deer population, because wolves are notoriously bad at doing statistical analysis that the felling amounts are based on. Even if the wolves had their own researchers, they probably wouldn’t understand “felling quotas”, would they?
Wolves eat too many deers, become hungry and die, then there are more deers, wolves have more food, there are more wolves.
Okay, humour me: if you were sentenced to death, which of the following would you choose?
I'm talking about human effect on nature, you're talking about cruelty.
Cmon, so serious. I just like wolves.
Anyway, a wolf usually won't attack humans. If it's hungry and irritated - yeah.
I don't think it's immoral, I just think it's ideologically dirtier for humans to perform the function of wolves.
Why did you skip the part where I ask how and who is it better for if there are wolves instead of hunters?
What sort of mental knot have you tied yourself into? Do you not have empathy? We're talking about the experience of dying. Which is more cruel to inflict on ANY creature; being shot dead with a single shot without you even realising it, or being torn to bits by wolves?
You have no idea how wolves behave, which is evident from your ridiculously naive take: >Wolves eat too many deers, become hungry and die, then there are more deers, wolves have more food, there are more wolves.
That's just, incredibly ignorant. The science of populations studies in animals is incredibly complex, and the wolves won't care about the ecology of the area where they're hunting. They could hunt a deer population out and then move to another area. These are known as wolf packs and there's a reason humans have historically avoided living in an area with a large, HUNGRY pack of wolves. Can you guess what it is?
Or do you think that when the deer of a certain area are finished, the wolves will just stay there and starve to death instead of eating other things?
Anyway, a wolf usually won’t attack humans. If it’s hungry and irritated - yeah.
Again, you don't understand how wolves behave. They don't behave like they do in your animu-shows or documents from tame wolves. If you saw a pack of wolves while standing on a field, and they saw you and happened to be somewhat close, and you started running, there's a pretty good propability they'd start chasing you down and tearing you to pieces. If you just stand your ground though, not a high chance. Reading this, you'll disagree, even though you have no basis to, and then you'll wonder why I even wrote that, and then you'll open this and learn about what coursing predators are.
They aren't aggressive to people, but to say that "a wolf won't usually attack humans" is clearly indicative you don't think they're dangerous. So you would literally unleash packs of coursing predators to central European areas, and think it would somehow be morally and otherwise better than hunting. And you can't even say why it's better to be torn to bits by canine teeth than it is to be shot, but you are saying it is better.
If you saw a pack of wolves while standing on a field, and they saw you and happened to be somewhat close, and you started running, there’s a pretty good propability they’d start chasing you down and tearing you to pieces.
Same as with dogs.
Reading this, you’ll disagree
Should have left me a choice, LOL.
Same as with dogs.
Wolves aren't dogs just like a kitty-cat isn't a lion. There's fundamentally different behaviours ingrained within them. If you had hounds and made someone run away from you, yeah, they would catch that person up, but unlike wolves, they wouldn't necssarily tear it to pieces (unless commanded), because those dogs have been conditioned for thousands and thousands of years by humans, changing their very nature. Canis familiaris has 5-10 times better ability to digest starch than canis lupus, although I don't expect you to understand the implication.
So explain to me how it is more moral to cause more suffering to animals by making them die by being ripped to shreds instead of being shot or not dying at all? Because that is causing the deer more suffering.
Tell me, why do you think the wolves will "starve and die" once the deers are eaten, instead of roaming to population centers and causing problems for people? They're just so polite, that they think "no we don't want to disturb the people, we'll rather just die" (because that's how you like to think of wolves as, and you clearly disregard any reality)? Or is it that you think wolves physically can't eat anything other than deer? Because they wouldn't attack people, right? Hungry wolf packs in central europe wouldn't do that, why would they, wolves are always just looking for scratchies obviously.
You might like for wolves to be cutesy little puppies that you can give hugs to. They're not. I've been into wolves since I was a kid, but I'm not delusional, unlike some people.
If you had hounds
I meant - same as with groups of homeless dogs.
There’s fundamentally different behaviours ingrained within them.
There the same species FFS.
because those dogs have been conditioned for thousands and thousands of years by humans, changing their very nature.
Not significantly. Mostly dogs behave differently because they are trained and don't when they are not. Of course a smaller and weaker dog will behave differently.
but unlike wolves, they wouldn’t necssarily tear it to pieces (unless commanded),
They totally would if they're hungry homeless dogs.
Canis familiaris has 5-10 times better ability to digest starch than canis lupus, although I don’t expect you to understand the implication.
Canis lupus familiaris from wild kinds of canis lupus, you mean? They are the same species.
You are right, I don't understand your implication, but races of homo sapiens also have such differences with lactose and chitin and maybe something else.
So explain to me how it is more moral to cause more suffering to animals by making them die by being ripped to shreds instead of being shot or not dying at all? Because that is causing the deer more suffering.
It rids us of moral ambiguity in evaluating people who hunt for fun, for example. Yep, it is more painful for the deer, but we won't live in the same society with that deer and we will with the hunter.
(It's not an attack, just one variant of answering your question.)
Tell me, why do you think the wolves will “starve and die” once the deers are eaten, instead of roaming to population centers and causing problems for people?
I don't, they will, unless they live behind a fence. And if there are protected forested areas, putting that fence there seems to not be such a bad idea.
You just seem to imagine this to be something very scary.
One brown bear is scarier than a pack of wolves.
You might like for wolves to be cutesy little puppies that you can give hugs to. They’re not. I’ve been into wolves since I was a kid, but I’m not delusional, unlike some people.
Eh, no, in that stage I liked tigers and lions and snow leopards more, ha-ha.
They are cutesy little puppies. Naturally with their own instincts, and they are carnivores, and pack animals, and so on.
There the same species FFS.
They're* and no, they're not.
A wolf is a wolf. A dog is dog. They are separate species, every definitively. And no, being able to have wolf/dog hybrids doesn't mean they're the same species, even though I'm sure you think that's how species are defined.
Canis familiaris is a dog. A canis lupus is a wolf, not a dog.
This has been my point the whole time; you think wild wolves are the same as pet dogs, and refuse to accept reality.
Typing errors happen.
Yes, they are. Why are you arguing with something which can be checked instantaneously?
There's no such thing as canis familiaris, it's called canis lupus familiaris, familiaris is subspecies.
Other subspecies are various wolves.
This has been my point the whole time; you think wild wolves are the same as pet dogs, and refuse to accept reality.
By classification they literally are.
Also I have a big dog, a person lives in the same building who has a big dog which is in fact such a hybrid (or maybe just a wolf). They, eh, have more experience than most dog owners, but the difference between a dog and a wolf is not qualitative.
Also could you stop with that tone? You don't seem smart arguing truisms if that's not clear.
I meant - same as with groups of homeless dogs.It isn’t.
That’s like saying a group of feral cats is “the same” as a pride of lions. It’s. Just. Not. The. Same. I don’t think you understand how large wolves are compared to dogs. I mean… you clearly don’t.
You just don’t understand the difference. You pretend wolves are dogs. They’re not. I don’t think you’d consider a tiger as safe as a housecat, even if the tiger was fed, would you? Why not? “They’re the exact same!”
So you think it’s more moral for you to unleash dangerous wild beasts into population centers than it is to hunt animals in those population centers? What the fuck are you smoking, because I want some too. You think you’re somehow absolved of responsibility of killing someone if you set an animal on them? What the fuck is the matter with you? Why is alright for the deer to die scared, panicking, alone, hobbling on one leg, while being eaten alive, but it’s not right for the deer to die completely unaware of impeding death? Why do you pretend dying in panic and blood gurgles is more moral than being executed cleanly?
I don’t, they will, unless they live behind a fence. And if there are protected forested areas, putting that fence there seems to not be such a bad idea.You don’t have any idea how prevalent deer are, because you’re so far removed from nature and hunting that you don’t understand what population control actually entails. Deer are commonplace in POPULATION CENTERS. You need wolves in the places where those deer are that you're supposing that they would hunt. So you are proposing that popping uncontrollable populations of apex predators into population centers — completely ignoring the fact that they haven't lived here in thousands of years and don't belong here and humans are the natural apex predators the ecology is used to — and think they will control the population in a way that will be better for everything in that environment?
You're being ridiculous.
I have no fear of wolves, because I've actually hung out with some. I'm just not delusional or poorly educated, so I understand the reality, which is that "reintroducing apex predators" is about as realistic as thinking storks bring babies. Why do you pretend to understand wolves when you've demonstrated ignorance about their behaviour, size, biology and a million other things?
Deer have to be hunted and there's NOTHING immoral about hunting deer for population control just because you're afraid of the most natural thing there is; death.
That’s like saying a group of feral cats is “the same” as a pride of lions.
No, I am talking about dogs and wolves, and this you've made up.
A group of maine coons gone feral compared to a group of forest cats may be a better comparison, if cats are what you are thinking about.
Anyway, I'm not advocating for keeping wolves as pets. Just for limited restoration of ecosystems including them.
I don’t think you understand how large wolves are compared to dogs. I mean… you clearly don’t.
I don't think you understand there are, first of all, different subspecies of wolves, which makes this point not worth arguing really.
Why is alright for the deer to die scared, panicking, alone, hobbling on one leg, while being eaten alive, but it’s not right for the deer to die completely unaware of impeding death? Why do you pretend dying in panic and blood gurgles is more moral than being executed cleanly?
I don't. You seem to really like arguing with yourself.
You don’t have any idea how prevalent deer are, because you’re so far removed from nature and hunting that you don’t understand what population control actually entails. Deer are commonplace in POPULATION CENTERS.
Some day someone may open your eyes to the fact that every part of the world is different.
You need wolves in the places where those deer are that you’re supposing that they would hunt.
No, I don't. You are imagining things where you like them and then complain that what I say doesn't fit. It won't and it shouldn't.
Why do you pretend to understand wolves when you’ve demonstrated ignorance about their behaviour, size, biology and a million other things?
I mean, I didn't have a chance to demonstrate anything between your walls of text consisting of you imagining what others think and condemning that as if anybody could care.
I also don't think I'm more ignorant than you on frankly anything.
Deer have to be hunted and there’s NOTHING immoral about hunting deer for population control just because you’re afraid of the most natural thing there is; death.
So? This doesn't have anything to do with anything I've said.
-
Whats the ecological impact of high human density?
Less than low density
"I'm wrong but I can't accept it so here I'll jump to ridiculous whataboutism that will hopefully make us ignore the fact that I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about"
"Postulate": suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
I do not postulate that overpopulation of deer will destroy entire environments. It's a cold hard fact which you wish to ignore.
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.
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.
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.
No, they're IGNORING it, like I said.
Which is why I'm reiterating it.
Then why stress the use of postulate?
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.
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.
Its not whataboutism. If you want to apply "killing is good against individuals of a species responsible for environmental destruction" then you should apply it to the biggest offender. Or be a hypocrite I guess. Your choice.
There's nothing hypocritical about it.
Two wrongs don't make a right, didn't your mommy ever teach you that?
That is literally whataboutism.
Deer population has to be managed, or entire environments will die. You won't get out of that being a fact by going "well but what about corporate pollution?!1?"
If you were accused of murder and asked to provide an alibi, you wouldn't get off by saying "well what about Jeffrey Dahmer?"
You seem to purposefully miss the point. Have fun with that I guess 🤷
You are quite literally purposefully ignoring the actual argument that you engaged with yourself.
No-one postulated anything.
It's an irrefutable fact that deer population control saves human and animal lives. You can't even acknowledge that.