Schoolgirls's Bunny Stolen By Animal Rights Activist

Read the note. Pay attention to the specific complaints outlined in the note. Nowhere in the note is there a point about how it is wrong to keep rabbits, nowhere is there a sentiment that the rabbit would be better off in the wild. The note was about the specific conditions that this rabbit was forced to live in.

Turn on the TV, and switch the station to Animal Planet. Every single day they run shows about animals which are seized because they were improperly cared for. When the Animal Cops seize a dude's horse, does that carry the expectation that the problem is with horse ownership alone? No. Does that mean that you assume that they're gonna take the horse and just turn it loose in the woods? No. Why would you look at this case, and assume that the rabbit is going to be turned loose in the wild by a deranged nut? They left a note which says their specific problem. And their problem WASN'T with pet ownership itself, the problem was with the rabbit being improperly housed.

Also, biased article is biased. Notice how it describes the thief as a cruel animal rights activists, as if we're talking about some kind of Snidely Whiplash kind of character who did it just to make the girl cry. Was the girl sad about her rabbit being taken from her? Of course. Now turn on the Animal Planet, and watch all those people who have their dogs and cats and horses seized from them. Are those people sad too? Hell yeah, but it'll be sort of ridiculous to state that their animals are being seized just to make them cry.

MrGeezer

Well, with your endorsement of trespassing, theft, and vigilantism, we all know a little more about you. Thanks for the heads up.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Read the note. Pay attention to the specific complaints outlined in the note. Nowhere in the note is there a point about how it is wrong to keep rabbits, nowhere is there a sentiment that the rabbit would be better off in the wild. The note was about the specific conditions that this rabbit was forced to live in.

Turn on the TV, and switch the station to Animal Planet. Every single day they run shows about animals which are seized because they were improperly cared for. When the Animal Cops seize a dude's horse, does that carry the expectation that the problem is with horse ownership alone? No. Does that mean that you assume that they're gonna take the horse and just turn it loose in the woods? No. Why would you look at this case, and assume that the rabbit is going to be turned loose in the wild by a deranged nut? They left a note which says their specific problem. And their problem WASN'T with pet ownership itself, the problem was with the rabbit being improperly housed.

Also, biased article is biased. Notice how it describes the thief as a cruel animal rights activists, as if we're talking about some kind of Snidely Whiplash kind of character who did it just to make the girl cry. Was the girl sad about her rabbit being taken from her? Of course. Now turn on the Animal Planet, and watch all those people who have their dogs and cats and horses seized from them. Are those people sad too? Hell yeah, but it'll be sort of ridiculous to state that their animals are being seized just to make them cry.

dkrustyklown

Well, with your endorsement of trespassing, theft, and vigilantism, we all know a little more about you. Thanks for the heads up.

those guys are pretty dumb if they think it was a good idea. a pet rabbit wont know how to take care of its self in the wild. that rabbit is as good as dead sadly .

Well, with your endorsement of trespassing, theft, and vigilantism, we all know a little more about you. Thanks for the heads up.

dkrustyklown

Maybe you should stop assuming and actually start reading.

Not once did I ever endorse trespassing or petty theft. The point was about how people read an obviously biased article and just fill in the blanks with whatever the hell they want to believe. Show me where I endorsed stealing the girl's rabbit, and I'll eat my ****ing hat.

I dont know how any of you can side with the activist. I hate animals. But that little girl and her family loved their rabbit and from what the article says, took care of it properly.

That douche bag stole that girl's pet, and thats all I need to hear. He was in the wrong, not the family.

[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]nothing like a PETA story to brighten the day. i must ask why people even still listen to PETA.bruinfan617

If it looks like a pig, smells like a pig and acts like a pig.. Then its probably a peta member.

So release it into the wild, which it not only isn't accustomed to, but remains defenseless? Yeah, great idea :roll:

Animal rights activists tend to be a bit over the top. I'm sure the bunny was receiving plenty of attention, especially since the owners were children. Since when is a hutch a bad place to keep a pet rabbit? :?

Well, if the family was not treating the rabbit properly, then kidnapping it was not the right approach. Talk to the family first or go call police or whatever.

Though if what the family says in that article is true, then it would seem that they really didn't treat their bunny that improperly.

I dont know how any of you can side with the activist. I hate animals. But that little girl and her family loved their rabbit and from what the article says, took care of it properly.

That douche bag stole that girl's pet, and thats all I need to hear. He was in the wrong, not the family.

Shmiity

I don't know anything about how to properly care for rabbits, so I don't know if the girl was taking proper care of it.

But I think we've already established that we can't take the article's word on it. It's already been shown that the article is trying to cause a kneejerk emotional reaction rather than to actually inform readers. There's a clear bias there, and the article has already been shown to be skewing facts in order to support an agenda. Of course they're gonna say that the girl was taking good care of the rabbit.

Even if the rabbit was living in cruel conditions, that still doesn't justify someone stealing it. But there's a difference between mere petty theft, and how the article was presenting the situation.

Again, I don't think I've seen ANYONE side with the activist. In fact, even refering to him/her/they as "activists" is likely nothing more than propaganda.

That guy is such a jerk, is the only thing i can write.

madsnakehhh

Maybe you should stop assuming and actually start reading.

Not once did I ever endorse trespassing or petty theft. The point was about how people read an obviously biased article and just fill in the blanks with whatever the hell they want to believe. Show me where I endorsed stealing the girl's rabbit, and I'll eat my ****ing hat.

MrGeezer

In your previous post, you clearly equate what the thief did to this poor girl's rabbit with what animal control officers do legitiimately and legally.

There is a fundamental difference, however. What the thief in this case did is illegal. It amounts to tresspassing and theft.

In your previous post, you clearly equate what the thief did to this poor girl's rabbit with what animal control officers do legitiimately and legally.

There is a fundamental difference, however. What the thief in this case did is illegal. It amounts to tresspassing and theft.

dkrustyklown

No kidding it's trespassing and theft.

And again, show me where the **** I ever said that trespassing and theft are okay.

And again, show me where the **** I ever said that trespassing and theft are okay.

MrGeezer

In the following quote, you clearly draw a parallel between what the thief did and what legitimate law enforcement officers do.

Turn on the TV, and switch the station to Animal Planet. Every single day they run shows about animals which are seized because they were improperly cared for. When the Animal Cops seize a dude's horse, does that carry the expectation that the problem is with horse ownership alone? No. Does that mean that you assume that they're gonna take the horse and just turn it loose in the woods? No. Why would you look at this case, and assume that the rabbit is going to be turned loose in the wild by a deranged nut? They left a note which says their specific problem. And their problem WASN'T with pet ownership itself, the problem was with the rabbit being improperly housed.MrGeezer

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

And again, show me where the **** I ever said that trespassing and theft are okay.

dkrustyklown

In the following quote, you clearly draw a parallel between what the thief did and what legitimate law enforcement officers do.

Turn on the TV, and switch the station to Animal Planet. Every single day they run shows about animals which are seized because they were improperly cared for. When the Animal Cops seize a dude's horse, does that carry the expectation that the problem is with horse ownership alone? No. Does that mean that you assume that they're gonna take the horse and just turn it loose in the woods? No. Why would you look at this case, and assume that the rabbit is going to be turned loose in the wild by a deranged nut? They left a note which says their specific problem. And their problem WASN'T with pet ownership itself, the problem was with the rabbit being improperly housed.MrGeezer

And see dude, this is where you exercise some reading comprehension.

I never once said that it was okay to steal $10 worth of the girl's property, I was referring to people's asinine assumption about the thief's motives.

Everyone here is just assuming that the thief is going to let the rabbit go free in the woods, because they're assuming that the motive for the robbery was to set the rabbit free. And that's an ignorant and unfounded assumption which has absolutely no merit. Regardless of if the theft was a crime, the point is that he/she said why they did it in the note. And the reasoning given is EXACTLY the same reasoning as why law enforcement will confiscate an abused horse...because it's ****ing cruel to the animal.

Look dude...whatever. It's not my problem if you can't understand a simple analogy. But it's a simple fact that I never said or even implied that it was okay to steal the rabbit. If you still want to try arguing over that, then you can argue with yourself. Because I've made myself very clear and feel absolutely no need to elaborate more on that.

[QUOTE="madsnakehhh"]

That guy is such a jerk, is the only thing i can write.

jwsoul

A girl would have much neater hand writing

And see dude, this is where you exercise some reading comprehension.

I never once said that it was okay to steal $10 worth of the girl's property, I was referring to people's asinine assumption about the thief's motives.

Everyone here is just assuming that the thief is going to let the rabbit go free in the woods, because they're assuming that the motive for the robbery was to set the rabbit free. And that's an ignorant and unfounded assumption which has absolutely no merit. Regardless of if the theft was a crime, the point is that he/she said why they did it in the note. And the reasoning given is EXACTLY the same reasoning as why law enforcement will confiscate an abused horse...because it's ****ing cruel to the animal.

Look dude...whatever. It's not my problem if you can't understand a simple analogy. But it's a simple fact that I never said or even implied that it was okay to steal the rabbit. If you still want to try arguing over that, then you can argue with yourself. Because I've made myself very clear and feel absolutely no need to elaborate more on that.

MrGeezer

Then you need to work on your delivery, because your post clearly conveys sympathy with the person that stole the rabbit and an adverserial position towards the girl's claim.

And their problem WASN'T with pet ownership itself, the problem was with the rabbit being improperly housed.MrGeezer

See, you stated that their problem was with the rabbit being improperly stored, as opposed to saying that their problem was that they believed that the rabbit was improperly stored. Your choice of words takes that the rabbit was being improperly stored as a given. Earlier in that paragraph, you drew a parallel with the legitimate activities of law enforcement officers as broadcasted on Animal Planet. I do not believe that your intent was that of an innocent analogy, but that it instead was to paint the thief that stole the poor girl's rabbit in the same light as law enforcement officers.

As for the article being biased...yeah, it's supposed to be. The girl is the victim of a crime. Crime stories are supposed to convey sympathy for the victim and scorn for the perpetrator. You know, it's that whole good guy Vs bad guy thing. You don't want journalists taking the sides of wanton criminals, do you?

Oh...wait. Didn't you argue that it was perfectly reasonable for religioius fanatics to issue death threats against cartoonists? I see.

Why the hell are they calling her a schoolgirl? This was at her home.guynamedbilly

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Why the hell are they calling her a schoolgirl? This was at her home.PerfectCircles

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because she is a girl...that happens to go to school...which, as a matter of fact, makes her a schoolgirl.

Wrong. News articles are supposed to prevent FACTS.

This article presents a LIE (the quote about what was written on the note) in order to garner FALSE sympathy for the victim. Then by the time they show the actual note (which shows the earlier claim to be BS), they are relying on the notion that no one reading the article is even going to read it.

The writer of the article describes the thief as "cruel". Which is poor and unethical writing, since it is creating a false motive for the theft and then applying that to the thief. The article itself is simply a load of horsecrap, pure and simple. It isn't reporting, it is CREATING a situation without there being even a shred of evidence that that situation has any basis in fact. And you need to get better at recognizing this kind of thing, because this is how people manipulate the truth in order to spread disinformation. If you can't even recognize an example as obvious about it as this article, then that's scary.

Wrong. News articles are supposed to prevent FACTS.MrGeezer

That depends on what school of journalism one adheres to. You seem to think that journalism is supposed to merely inform for no other purpose than to inform. I categorically reject that notion. The purpose of journalism is to inform for the purpose of pursuading the audience. The history of journalism supports my position quite well. The journalist presenting a crime story doesn't merely state the facts, he or she should also pass judgment on the act in order to clearly convey to the audience that such acts are intolerable in civilized society or that the law that is being violated is unjust and unworthy of obedience. A good story takes a side. Good is good. Evil is evil. Forget moral relativism. It is the journalist's job to stamp his or his organization's ethos on the story in order to not only describe the world, but also change it and shape it in his best interests and wishes.

This article presents a LIE (the quote about what was written on the note) in order to garner FALSE sympathy for the victim. Then by the time they show the actual note (which shows the earlier claim to be BS), they are relying on the notion that no one reading the article is even going to read it.MrGeezer

What lie? A thief stole a schoolgirl's rabbit. Fact? Check. The thief left a taunting note. Fact? Check.

Anytime that someone commits a crime and then leaves his victim a note, that qualifies as taunting. Does the victim feel taunted? Why yes she does. Therefore that was a taunting note. Yeah, criminal perpetrators that leave notes are taunting their victims. IMO, that should be taken into consideration as an aggravating factor in the perpetrator's prosecution and sentencing.

The writer of the article describes the thief as "cruel". Which is poor and unethical writing, since it is creating a false motive for the theft and then applying that to the thief. The article itself is simply a load of horsecrap, pure and simple. It isn't reporting, it is CREATING a situation without there being even a shred of evidence that that situation has any basis in fact. And you need to get better at recognizing this kind of thing, because this is how people manipulate the truth in order to spread disinformation. If you can't even recognize an example as obvious about it as this article, then that's scary.

MrGeezer

Stealing a little girl's beloved pet is cruel. Therefore, the thief that stole the little girl's beloved pet is acting cruelly, which means that the theif is cruel.

One that commits a cruel act=cruel person

Stealing a little girl's bunny=cruel act

Perpetrator that stole the little girl's bunny=cruel thief

What lie? A thief stole a schoolgirl's rabbit. Fact? Check. The thief left a taunting note. Fact? Check.

dkrustyklown

This lie:

"It read: 'This is animal cruelty. Rabbits should not be left in hutches, they should be out in the wild and socialising.' "

Despite the quote marks, that passage appears nowhere in the note whatsoever. The note says nothing about releasing the rabbit into the wild.

It's already been shown that the article is trying to cause a kneejerk emotional reaction rather than to actually inform readers.MrGeezer

Lie: "On top of the hutch was an A4 plastic sleeve containing a small, handwritten note, saying: 'This is animal cruelty. Rabbits should not be left in hutches, they should be out in the wild and socialising.''

This is absolutely indisputable. That is NOT what the note says, period. As we see, people reading this article are still thinking that the rabbit was released into the wild, when there is literally NO evidence to support such a thing happening.

On the topic of the theft itself, I imagine readers would get a very different impression if we were reading an article about someone stealing one of Michael Vick's dogs, and then leaving behind a note criticizing his cruel treatment of it. It would still be just as illegal as stealing the rabbit, but readers' reactions would be VERY different.

On the topic of the theft itself, I imagine readers would get a very different impression if we were reading an article about someone stealing one of Michael Vick's dogs, and then leaving behind a note criticizing his cruel treatment of it. It would still be just as illegal as stealing the rabbit, but readers' reactions would be VERY different.

MrGeezer

Once again, with your comparison you convey sympathy for the thief and an adverserial position towards the poor girl. Face it, no matter how you maneuver your wording, you are essentially endorsing the thief's actions. First you compare what the thief did to what law enforcement officers are shown doing on Animal Planet, and then you compare the little girl to Micheal Vick.

You are on the wrong side.

[QUOTE="PerfectCircles"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Why the hell are they calling her a schoolgirl? This was at her home.dkrustyklown

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because she is a girl...that happens to go to school...which, as a matter of fact, makes her a schoolgirl.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Wrong. News articles are supposed to prevent FACTS.dkrustyklown

That depends on what school of journalism one adheres to. You seem to think that journalism is supposed to merely inform for no other purpose than to inform. I categorically reject that notion. The purpose of journalism is to inform for the purpose of pursuading the audience. The history of journalism supports my position quite well. The journalist presenting a crime story doesn't merely state the facts, he or she should also pass judgment on the act in order to clearly convey to the audience that such acts are intolerable in civilized society or that the law that is being violated is unjust and unworthy of obedience. A good story takes a side. Good is good. Evil is evil. Forget moral relativism. It is the journalist's job to stamp his or his organization's ethos on the story in order to not only describe the world, but also change it and shape it in his best interests and wishes.

You need to be balanced. Otherwise you're dangerously close to yellow journalism, and no honest journalist wants that.

Journalists shouldn't - and simply can't - be objective.

This is a reason why newspapers have their editorial and news columns often treating the same subject. The UK press code of conduct states that The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

The article we're talking about is a piece of crappy journalism.

From my experience, it's very difficult to get used to this elementary balance that's required to be a good journalist. There's a strong temptation to act like a judge or an educator but, well, you're not.To cut it short: you can't go around criticising and passing judgement in an article like this. Do it in the editorial column, not in an informative article.

Unless you're practicing yellow journalism - something no self-respecting journalist wants to.

This lie:

"It read: 'This is animal cruelty. Rabbits should not be left in hutches, they should be out in the wild and socialising.' "

Despite the quote marks, that passage appears nowhere in the note whatsoever. The note says nothing about releasing the rabbit into the wild.

GabuEx

Looks more like a misquote due to the thief's poor handwriting than anything else. Regardless, the misquote is inconsequential, since the basic facts behind the article's moral indignation still stand. A thief claiming to act in an animal's interests stole a beloved pet from a young schoolgirl. That is the core of the story and the basis for the author's scorn against the perpetrator. The little girl is still worthy of sympathy and the thief is worthy of condemnation.

I hope that they catch the perpetrator and throw the book at him or her.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

This lie:

"It read: 'This is animal cruelty. Rabbits should not be left in hutches, they should be out in the wild and socialising.' "

Despite the quote marks, that passage appears nowhere in the note whatsoever. The note says nothing about releasing the rabbit into the wild.

dkrustyklown

Looks more like a misquote due to the thief's poor handwriting than anything else. Regardless, the misquote is inconsequential, since the basic facts behind the article's moral indignation still stand. A thief claiming to act in an animal's interests stole a beloved pet from a young schoolgirl. That is the core of the story and the basis for the author's scorn against the perpetrator. The little girl is still worthy of sympathy and the thief is worthy of condemnation.

I hope that they catch the perpetrator and throw the book at him or her.

Poor handwriting? Really? Look at that note and tell me where someone would get that quote from "poor handwriting".

And if the misquote is inconsequential, then explain the fact that like half of the people posting to this thread are expressing disgust for the idea that this rabbit would be released in the wild.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

On the topic of the theft itself, I imagine readers would get a very different impression if we were reading an article about someone stealing one of Michael Vick's dogs, and then leaving behind a note criticizing his cruel treatment of it. It would still be just as illegal as stealing the rabbit, but readers' reactions would be VERY different.

dkrustyklown

Once again, with your comparison you convey sympathy for the thief and an adverserial position towards the poor girl. Face it, no matter how you maneuver your wording, you are essentially endorsing the thief's actions. First you compare what the thief did to what law enforcement officers are shown doing on Animal Planet, and then you compare the little girl to Micheal Vick.

You are on the wrong side.

Bull****.

You can't say that it's ALL about the illegal theft of an animal, and then pretend that the Michael Vick analogy is unfair. If it's all about petty theft of a pet, that would EXACTLY qualify in my analogy.

And if you admit that there IS a difference between the two situations, then you're making the issue about the alleged abuse of the animal.

You can't have it both ways. And more importantly, you can't make up information to fill in gaps in the story. That's why you stay objective, and don't pick sides.

So their answer is to let a domesticated rabbit into the wild to fend for itself?..Because that's SO much better for it then being cared for and loved by a little girl..:roll:

And if the misquote is inconsequential, then explain the fact that like half of the people posting to this thread are expressing disgust for the idea that this rabbit would be released in the wild.

GabuEx

So their answer is to let a domesticated rabbit into the wild to fend for itself?..Because that's SO much better for it then being cared for and loved by a little girl..:roll:

Xx_Hopeless_xX

Case in point. :P

thats mean. though the guy probably kept the bunny and made stu out of it. sick person! :x

Bull****.

You can't say that it's ALL about the illegal theft of an animal, and then pretend that the Michael Vick analogy is unfair. If it's all about petty theft of a pet, that would EXACTLY qualify in my analogy.

And if you admit that there IS a difference between the two situations, then you're making the issue about the alleged abuse of the animal.

You can't have it both ways. And more importantly, you can't make up information to fill in gaps in the story. That's why you stay objective, and don't pick sides.

MrGeezer

You are comparing an innocent little girl that had her beloved pet stolen from her in the dark of night to Micheal Vick, a man that ran a dog fighting operation.

Before, you compared the cruel thief that stole away the poor child's animal companion to the law enforcement officers shown on Animal Planet.

Your comparisons paint the thief as a hero and the little girl as a cruel sadist.

There is clearly something wrong with the message that you present. You have the roles reversed.

The reality is that the little girl is an innocent victim and the thief is a curel miscreant. I do wish that you would recognize this simple truth.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

And if the misquote is inconsequential, then explain the fact that like half of the people posting to this thread are expressing disgust for the idea that this rabbit would be released in the wild.

GabuEx

So their answer is to let a domesticated rabbit into the wild to fend for itself?..Because that's SO much better for it then being cared for and loved by a little girl..:roll:

Xx_Hopeless_xX

Case in point. :P

Now in the wild it has to find it's own food, findshelter, avoid predators..it just doesn't seem like the odds are in the rabbit's favor..

Well i don't believe it would be able to survive for very long after being domesticated..and being fed specific food at specific times..

Now in the wild it has to find it's own food, findshelter, avoid predators..it just doesn't seem like the odds are in the rabbit's favor..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

Yes, and the problem is that what the article offers in quotation marks is in fact not a quote at all, but a paraphrase. This is the exact note left:

Note that there is absolutely nothing in the note saying anything about releasing the rabbit into the wild.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

Well i don't believe it would be able to survive for very long after being domesticated..and being fed specific food at specific times..

Now in the wild it has to find it's own food, findshelter, avoid predators..it just doesn't seem like the odds are in the rabbit's favor..

GabuEx

Yes, and the problem is that what the article offers in quotation marks is in fact not a quote at all, but a paraphrase. This is the exact note left:

Note that there is absolutely nothing in the note saying anything about releasing the rabbit into the wild.

The reality is that the little girl is an innocent victim and the thief is a curel miscreant. I do wish that you would recognize this simple truth.

dkrustyklown

The allegation by the thief was that the girl was NOT innocent of mistreating the animal.

And again, if you'd be willing to accept the theft of someone's pet if the owner is mistreating it, then you surely see the problem here.

If instead of a cute young schoolgirl, the victim had been a hard-looking man in a ghetto, there'd be much less tendency for people to assume right off the bat that the pet was stolen out of "cruelty". There'd be a lot more people assuming that the owner WAS mistreating the animal, and that it was justifiable for the thief to steal it.

If so inclined, one could equally well skew the facts to make the girl out to be some sick freak who liked to torture bunnies. Could be just as "factual" as this article while simultaneously being completely misleading. You're not responding to the actual events that occured, you're responding to the story which the writer decided he wanted you to hear. You're judging an event based on the writer's personal interpretation about the event. People here aren't responding to what happened so much as they are responding to the writer telling them what to think.