29岁律师3年虐杀4000只猫，黑色产业链曝光

>> 右逼：虐杀猫不违法，人权高于动物权，虐猫是个人兴趣，是个人自由，谁反对谁是猫孝子

雖然我嚴格意義上不屬於右派，屬於中左人士，但右逼反動保簡直是正確得不能再正確了，這一點不容質疑。
給動物立所謂的保護法本來就是人類吃飽了撐的一種吃飯前還要對飯菜進行懺悔求原諒那般的蠢蛋兼智障行為。人類是世界的主宰，人權本身就是該高於世上萬事萬物的地位，天經地義。不服氣就去申請自願放棄人籍，或者等到哪天外星人來殖民地球，人權就不是最高尚的了。那種反客為主的精神錯亂思想和舉動本來就不該存在，本身都屬於人類生活過於安逸而撒潑打滾和無理取鬧的腦子殘障，批判也是正確的。
我本身是一個愛鳥的中左溫和派，只愛鳥，對其他動物一概無感。對於蛇、蠍、鼠以及貓這些對人類和鳥類具有傷害性的物種都十分厭惡。蛇、蠍這些有毒玩意，我想，除了某些有怪癖的人會供著養，大部份正常人應該都不喜歡吧。你喜歡可以自己養在家裡，但不要把它們關在玻璃缸和籠子裡，因為這侵犯了蛇權和蠍權的自由活動權。就讓它們在你家裡自由活動，充分尊重它們的權利和自由。要是它們把你孩子或父母咬傷，甚至咬死了，不要去殺戮它們，它們也有生命權。對於貓，雖然本心並不茍同那種主張搞滅絕的極端者，但也討厭貓。因為以前我家養了一只寶貝金絲雀，這鳥我從小養到大，形影不離。但有一天，一只野貓從窗戶溜進來把它殘忍吃掉了，那賤貓還把我愛鳥的羽毛都弄得體無完膚，我的寶貝金絲雀就這樣沒了。人類之間還講求「殺人償命」的道理，按這天理，殺了我愛鳥的命，那貓怎麼也該償命，還有什麼好說的！但可惜，當時沒能親手抓到它，那只貓就這樣逍遙法外了。
人類在對待動物這方面其實很智障、雙標且虛偽。貓吃老鼠前，變著法折磨和虐待老鼠，你怎麼不去教育下貓要和老鼠和平共處，要尊重鼠權。不光老鼠，我上面說的吃鳥。按說，我的愛鳥理應擁有鳥權，那賤貓吃了我的鳥，侵犯了我愛鳥的鳥權，貓為什麼可以不受法律制裁？此外，像蝗蟲和蚜蟲因為會吃人類的莊稼，人類就把它們定性為害蟲，按照人際之間的倫理來看，這明顯屬於貼標簽的種族歧視，難道不虛偽和做作嗎？人類為了觀賞動物的習性和姿態，把老虎、獅子那些原本在森林和草原生活的動物不經過它們同意就把它們關進動物園養著。雖然好吃好喝供著，但它們失去了天生的自由活動權，這難道就不侵犯它們的權利？就不違法？動物園的人為什麼不受法律嚴懲？
所以說，所謂的「動保」就是既虛偽又傻逼至極的偽命題。在意動保的蠢蛋，要麼是你智商不高，要麼是你心態還不夠成熟，就比如你。
​我知道，我的長篇大論肯定會得罪很多牲口同情者，讓很多聖母婊和精神動物孝子玻璃心碎一地，但我就喜歡看你們惱羞成怒的傻樣！
​
​While I do not identify strictly with the right-wing and consider myself centre-left, the right’s opposition to animal protectionism is absolutely and unquestionably correct.
The very idea of enacting so-called laws on animal protection is nothing more than a foolish and idiotic human indulgence—akin to apologising to one’s food before eating it, borne from having too much time on one’s hands. Mankind is the rightful ruler of this world, and man’s rights take precedence inherently and rightly over all other considerations. Those who disagree are welcome to renounce the human status voluntarily, or wait until the day aliens colonise Earth—man’s rights will no longer be supreme then. This kind of deranged, upside-down thinking and behaviour should never have existed in the first place; it is simply the result of overly comfortable lives leading to spoiled, unreasonable, and mentally deficient outbursts. Criticising it is only right.
I am a bird-loving, moderate centre-leftist—fond of birds and indifferent to other animals. I dislike species deeply such as snakes, scorpions, rats and cats, which are harmful to mankind and birds. As for venomous creatures like snakes and scorpions, I think aside from a few eccentrics who might keep them as curiosities, most sensible men would not like them. If you like them, by all means keep them at home—but don’t confine them in glass-tanks or cages, as that violates their serpentine and scorpionic rights to free movement. Let them roam freely around your house, respecting their freedom fully. Should they bite—or even kill—your child or parent, do not kill them; they have a right to life too.
As for cats, while I do not agree with extremists who advocate their eradication, I detest them nevertheless. Once I had a treasured canary, raised from infancy, that was my constant companion. One day, a stray cat slipped through the window and devoured it cruelly. The despicable cat left my beloved bird’s feathers scattered and torn—just like that, my canary was gone. Even among men, we uphold the principle of ‘a life for a life.’ By that same justice, the cat that took my bird’s life deserved to pay with its own—what more is there to say! Sadly, I never caught it, and that cat remains at large.
Mankind’s approach to animals is, in truth, idiotic, hypocritical and twofold in its standards. When a cat tortures and torments a mouse before eating it, why don’t you educate the cat about peaceful coexistence and respecting rodent rights? And it’s not just mice—as mentioned, cats prey also on birds. By rights, my beloved bird possessed avian rights. That vile cat violated them by killing it—so why does the cat face no legal consequences? Moreover, creatures like locusts and aphids are labelled pests simply because they eat man’s crops. By human ethical standards, isn’t that blatant labelling and racial discrimination?
For amusement, mankind lock tigers, lions and other wild animals—creatures of forest and plain—into zoos without their consent. Though well-fed, they are stripped of their innate right to roam freely. Does that not violate their rights? Is it not unlawful? Why are zookeepers not punished severely by law?
Thus, so-called ‘animal protection’ is a hypocritical and utterly stupid false premise. Those foolish enough to care about it are either lacking in intelligence or maturity—much like yourself.
I am aware well that my lengthy discourse will offend many idiotic sympathisers for Beast, shattering the delicate sensitivities of sanctimonious do-gooders and mentally unwell animal enthusiasts. But I rather enjoy watching you lot seethe with impotent rage!
Fuck you all!🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜😜