Animal “rights” terrorists kill thirteen mink after freeing them

Animal rights terrorists broke into a Czechoslovakian fur farm near Jindřichův Hradec last week. According to the Prague Post, soon after breaking into the facility the attackers let a number of mink out of their cages and then sprayed the animals pink in order to render their fur useless for sale.

Attempts were made to wash the paint off of the mink’s fur but were mostly unsuccessful. Some mink were blinded resulting from the spray paint but up to thirteen died most likely due to stress related to the incident. The total amount of mink released and suffered from this event remains undisclosed. Farm supervisors found the inscription ALF on a fence which is the inscription for the notorious Animal Liberation Front.

The significance of this event isn’t just the fact that ALF activists trespassed and released a number of animals used in the production of mink products but that the animals were spray painted. It goes to show not only does ALF not care about the animals it claims to save but wants to sabotage efforts for humans to enjoy the luxury of owning mink fur products. Animal rights groups are not just about eradicating human life, in this instance it is also to gradually make life a living hell on Earth for mankind which includes slowly denying people the ability to enjoy life’s pleasures such as owning things like a real mink fur coat.

10 thoughts on “Animal “rights” terrorists kill thirteen mink after freeing them

  1. Why should they not try to put an end to this pleasure of owning a real fur product if it means the suffering of countless others? Is ones right to live not more important than ones right to a fur coat?

    Like

    • The minks that are used for fur production are not harmed in any way. The factories that produce the mink fur for coats and other items do so in a way that is very careful not to do harm to the animal.

      There are some factories that treat minks and even other animals like crap but they are not the majority of the facilities. It is not in a company’s best interest to treat animals it uses for products in a manner detrimental to it since the animal could die early or become sick hindering its ability to produce fur.

      In terms of animal rights philosophy, I encourage you to peruse the pages of this site as I have explained in detail the problems with it. In short, rights do not depend on a being’s ability to feel pain but on a beings ability to think. It is homospaiens’ ability to think and reason that makes us nature’s favorite. That is why our species is superior to animals and other forms of life on Earth.

      Like

      • Do the animal not need to die in order for us to take their fur?
        Why should ones ability to feel pain not been taken into concern in these situations?
        Even if we believe that humans are superior to all other life forms, why does that give us the right to exploit other forms of life?

        Like

      • Because in order for humans to survive we need to exploit the planet’s resources. Keep in mind the word “exploit” means to strike for a notable deed; a spirited or heroic act. Humans do make mistakes but by and large we have made tremendous progress thanks to our ability to live, survive and thrive using Earth’s resources. The social system that made this possible? Capitalism.

        Like

      • No, not at all. The ethic “I feel pain, therefore I have rights” was thought up by French Enlightenment philosopher Rene Descartes. British philosopher John Locke whose writings on political philosophy came later and corrected Descartes conclusion. Locke said that in order for a being to have rights they must have the capacity of deliberation and choice.

        Individual rights are a moral and legal principles that enable humans to interact in terms of exchanging ideas or things of physical value (I.e. Trade). If a human is incapacitated they have a right to life and then the family is given responsibility to care for them by a court. Ultimately, rights are by and for humans as the recent failure of the Non-human Rights Project’s unsuccessful attempts to get habeas corpus protections for two chimpanzees in New York will demonstrate.

        Like

      • In terms of children they do have the capacity of thinking and reasoning. Their ability to do so is impaired in most ways since their minds are just developing. Of which their parents, rightly, are in charge of ensuring that their kids are well developed when they reach eighteen. That is why children are not considered adults until that time. If they are incapacitated due to an illness such as mental retardation the parents take on the task of raising them or the court appoints a guardian to do so. Hope all of this answers.

        Like

      • I don’t understand why this all can’t be applied to animals. In my opinion, if someone is able to feel physical and emotional pain then I have no right to inflict suffering on that being. Do you not agree? Or am I missing your point completely?

        Like

      • The reason why rights cannot be applied to animals is that the consequences of such will be deadly for humans overall. Please look at the posts I have done on groups opposed to using animals for medical research. Banning the use of animals for medical testing means that medicines and therapies that will not be discovered due to the fact scientists can’t use animals for their experiments. There is an excellent “Vice News” documentary that I posted that goes into this. When it comes to your other questions, please see my other posts or you can read Tibor Machan’s book “Putting Humans First”. Thank you for your time and interest.

        Like

Comments are closed.