Likewise, at the beginning of the film, caring animal protectionists trespass a laboratory, watch the poor chimpanzees burst into love, use violence and intimidation to temporarily control and discover their laboratory work After the personnel, began to try to rescue these poor chimpanzees.
It's a pity that the brain-dead people on these love hormones (assuming there is such a thing) did not listen to the same pitiful warning from the staff, and even the staff did not understand the warning that these chimpanzees carry infectious diseases (Nima, also animal protection ideology, even the dangers that animals carry infectious diseases may pose), and resolutely released a chimpanzee, so tragedy happened, the so-called love killed almost all of the British people.
This reminds me of the so-called dog lovers who ran to the expressway to save the dog. After infringing on the rights of the driver, they finally bought the dogs with their own money, but even so, the driver still Been stuck inexplicably for hours. Later, it was said that these dogs had no money for treatment in the pet hospital, but this was not the fault of these dog lovers; I also heard that these so-called dog lovers turned around and went to eat game after rescuing the dogs. Of course, this cannot be confirmed.
In both cases, true and false, these so-called animal protectionists have the same expression of love: for their noble cause of saving dogs, they completely ignore the interests of others and ignore their behavior. The possible serious consequences, but also ignore the specific circumstances. It stands to reason that at certain moments, it is reasonable to carry out some special behaviors that break the rules, but the condition that such rationality must meet is that the behavior is to avoid serious harm to others (note that it is his "person") , avoid serious social and environmental consequences (such as you go to rescue an endangered protected animal that is about to be eaten), but this behavior is purely for their so-called love, because they feel that the treatment of these animals is too cruel.
It is a strange behavior to give the so-called humanistic care for humans to non-human creatures too much, because if this humanistic care is extended, will we finally start to consider whether bacteria, viruses or cockroaches also have the right to be protected from harm; but if this humanistic concern is limited to certain animals, is there a suspicion of category discrimination? Or as the cartoonist Murong Aoao said in the comics, "If you don't sell cute, you have to die"?
Speaking of this, I think of the plot in the game Zombie Rieg. The old lady who was eager to save her dog broke the door and killed a large group of people hiding in the supermarket. She also died on the same day as the dog. If the old lady thinks so It's okay to die in the right place. The behavior of pulling so many backs is actually no different from those zombies who can only speak.
In fact, it doesn't say that animal protectionism is bad, it's just that some good wishes develop to the point of ignoring the interests and dignity of others, that is stupid or dangerous dogma.
In addition, if there is a real biochemical crisis, stay away from animals, stay away from the elderly, stay away from people who keep pets, and ultimately want the elderly who keep animals in principle.
View more about 28 Days Later... reviews
