Is stray animal protection as urgent as it seems? As a matter of fact, I would like to change the movement's name to "de-privileged animal protection." Stray animals can neither speak for their own rights nor register as voters. They are the most unprivileged among the underprivileged. Suppose the whole society sees them not as life but as trash. In that case, we would treat foreign laborers, old citizens who live alone, people with disabilities, and all other minority groups similarly, as if a domino effect starts to implement itself. However, if we secure the first domino piece, that is, if we can rescue a stray cat out of kindness, shall we fail to treat other species (including humans) in suffering kindly? I recalled a reader from a university abroad saying in his letter to me, "I envy neither democracy nor wealth in Taiwan. But I do envy the kindness and tolerance of Taiwanese people as shown in their kind treatment of non-human species described in your cat book." Therefore, it is not a matter of cat caring or not (to use the rhetoric of relativism permeating throughout this society, as in "Just as you have the freedom to love cats, so I have the freedom to hate them"). We care for aboriginal kids or starving kids in Africa, not because we love or do not love them. It is an act of generosity, rightly making us a civilized being.