Schoolgirls's Bunny Stolen By Animal Rights Activist

ah, i see what you're saying now :x..although it may imply that the rabbit was in fact let out by whoever left the note..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

Sure that's possible. But the point is that no one knows, and there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that that was the thief's intent.

Reading the article, it is very clear that the writer is deliberately trying to send the message that the animal is going to be released, because that garners more sympathy for the animal and for the little girl. The article is so biased and misleading that it's basically worthless. And once we see what incorrect information was included in order to get a specific reation from readers, it logically leads to the question of what (if any) information they chose NOT to include in order to better serve their bias.

Now, stealing pets is of course wrong. The problem is that so much of the outrage here is NOT about the mere theft of the animal. The theft is a fact, so there's nothing wrong with people getting angry about that. But there's "what happened", and "what the writer wants us to believe happened". Once people are getting upset about what the writer wants us to think happened vs what actually happened, then the article is basically garbage.

Maybe they should go after parents who let their kids seclude themselves in their rooms all day with no exercise.

What a ****.

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.

MrGeezer

That you take the anonymous word of a thief over that of a young girl pleading her case openly to the media is astounding.

Guess what? Anonymous thieves don't get to make allegations. By it's very nature, the thief's claims must be dismissed out of hand. Why? Because they are anonymous allegations made by a despicable criminal whose word means absolutely nothing and who is completely undeserving of sympathy or mercy.

Oh, and gess what. It is never, under any circumstances, justifiable to steal anything! There is never just cause for stealing the property of another.

Here, I'll highlight your very own words:

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.MrGeezer

So, as everyone can see, you are endorsing trespassing and theft as a means by which to legitimately accomplish goals. Tsk, tsk. It's never ok to steal.

Oh, and one more thing, in Texas, catching a thief stealing an animal in the middle of the night would be legal cause for using lethal force and ridding the world of a thieving nuissance. Texas Penal code sections 9.41 and 9.42 cover the situation.

God bless Texas. More places need to implements the self defense and defense of property laws of the state of Texas. More thieves getting zipped up in body bags is a good thing.

dkrustyklown

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]HerrJosefK

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]HerrJosefK

Yeah and reading that article again it's remarkable, the biased skew of everything.... I doubt an animals rights activist is going to release a rabbit in the wild knowing what'll happen to it. I don't agree with stealing it, but gosh this article really did succeed in making people believe it was evil conniving sadistic demon that stole this rabbit and not just some overly zealous Animal rights activist.

Oh, and gess what. It is never, under any circumstances, justifiable to steal anything! There is never just cause for stealing the property of another.

dkrustyklown

Then why, pray tell, would you say this:

"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."

If "it is never, under any circumstances, justifiable to steal anything", then what difference does it make if the victim is an innocent little girl or Michael Vick, hmm? Why would you take the time to describe her as "innocent" - repeatedly, I might add - if indeed stealing from one who is guilty would be equally unjustifiable?

You also seem to be deliberately avoiding an understanding of what MrGeezer is actually saying, but that's a different issue.

I will never have to worry about that for two reason. I have already told my kids they can't have a rabbit because all they are good for is crapping everywhere. But I do like rabbits. Second reason is when I move, I plan on getting two dobermen pinchers. let em come in my yard and see how fast my dogs would rip em a new one.

Then why, pray tell, would you say this:

"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."

If "it is never, under any circumstances, justifiable to steal anything", then what difference does it make if the victim is an innocent little girl or Michael Vick, hmm? Why would you take the time to describe her as "innocent" - repeatedly, I might add - if indeed stealing from one who is guilty would be equally unjustifiable?

You also seem to be deliberately avoiding an understanding of what MrGeezer is actually saying, but that's a different issue.

GabuEx

Did I say that it was ok to steal from Micheal Vick? As I understand it, Micheal Vick's dogs were not stolen, since the police had warrants to seize evidence for a criminal prosecution.

If Micheal Vick's dogs would have been stolen by some vigilante acting outside the law, then that thief would be just as bad as the one that stole the little girl's rabbit. Theft is wrong, no matter the circumstances, and thieves deserve no sympathy whatsoever.

So stop throwing up hypoetheticals. Theft is wrong....full stop. There is no justification for theft.

10 commandments: #7 (#8 in Torah), "you shall not steal". It does not have any qualifiers. It does not have any exceptions. Theft is a heinous act that cannot be tolerated no matter the circumstances.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Then why, pray tell, would you say this:

"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."

If "it is never, under any circumstances, justifiable to steal anything", then what difference does it make if the victim is an innocent little girl or Michael Vick, hmm? Why would you take the time to describe her as "innocent" - repeatedly, I might add - if indeed stealing from one who is guilty would be equally unjustifiable?

You also seem to be deliberately avoiding an understanding of what MrGeezer is actually saying, but that's a different issue.

dkrustyklown

Did I say that it was ok to steal from Micheal Vick? As I understand it, Micheal Vick's dogs were not stolen, since the police had warrants to seize evidence for a criminal prosecution.

If Micheal Vick's dogs would have been stolen by some vigilante acting outside the law, then that thief would be just as bad as the one that stole the little girl's rabbit. Theft is wrong, no matter the circumstances, and thieves deserve no sympathy whatsoever.

So stop throwing up hypoetheticals. Theft is wrong....full stop. There is no justification for theft.

10 commandments: #7 (#8 in Torah), "you shall not steal". It does not have any qualifiers. It does not have any exceptions. Theft is a heinous act that cannot be tolerated no matter the circumstances.

You wouldn't steal to feed your family if you had no other way to get food? I know that's a big hypothetical, but you can't make an absolute statement on anything when it comes to morality, since under certain circumstances, anything is justifiable.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Then why, pray tell, would you say this:

"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."

If "it is never, under any circumstances, justifiable to steal anything", then what difference does it make if the victim is an innocent little girl or Michael Vick, hmm? Why would you take the time to describe her as "innocent" - repeatedly, I might add - if indeed stealing from one who is guilty would be equally unjustifiable?

You also seem to be deliberately avoiding an understanding of what MrGeezer is actually saying, but that's a different issue.

dkrustyklown

Did I say that it was ok to steal from Micheal Vick? As I understand it, Micheal Vick's dogs were not stolen, since the police had warrants to seize evidence for a criminal prosecution.

If Micheal Vick's dogs would have been stolen by some vigilante acting outside the law, then that thief would be just as bad as the one that stole the little girl's rabbit. Theft is wrong, no matter the circumstances, and thieves deserve no sympathy whatsoever.

So stop throwing up hypoetheticals. Theft is wrong....full stop. There is no justification for theft.

10 commandments: #7 (#8 in Torah), "you shall not steal". It does not have any qualifiers. It does not have any exceptions. Theft is a heinous act that cannot be tolerated no matter the circumstances.

If you didn't say it was OK to steal from Michael Vick, then, again, why did you mention - repeatedly - that the victim in this case was an "innocent girl"? People don't use adjectives without cause. Within the context of one as the victim of theft, you objected to the hypothetical in which the victim is Michael Vick, rather than an "innocent girl". Why?

That you take the anonymous word of a thief over that of a young girl pleading her case openly to the media is astounding.

dkrustyklown

You don't ****ing get it.

It's not a matter of the girl's word vs the thief's word. Again, it's not a freaking matter of "taking sides".

This issue here is that BOTH SIDES are represented by a biased writer who has already been shown to be a ****ing liar. The decision to take ANY side would be making a judgement out of ignorance.

The writer has poisoned the ****ing well. What do you not understand about this? By commenting on the incident in the same article in which he describes the details of the incident, he has taken personal opinion and lies and fact, and intermingled all of them to such an extent that the article is completely ****ing worthless. What do you not understand about that?

I didn't bother reading the article. I just read the title and looked at the pics and laughed. This is something you would see on The Onion or something.

Apparently activists arn't very smart.

When you take an animal that has been cared for and not had to worry about predators or getting food for it's entire life and then release it into the wild, bad things happen to said animal.

Then why, pray tell, would you say this:

"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."

If "it is never, under any circumstances, justifiable to steal anything", then what difference does it make if the victim is an innocent little girl or Michael Vick, hmm? Why would you take the time to describe her as "innocent" - repeatedly, I might add - if indeed stealing from one who is guilty would be equally unjustifiable?

You also seem to be deliberately avoiding an understanding of what MrGeezer is actually saying, but that's a different issue.

GabuEx

One more thing. MrGeezer is the one that is comparing the innocent young schoolgirl to convicted felon Micheal Vick, not me. I pointed out that such a comparison on the part of MrGeezer only serves to paint a little girl in a bad light. He brought it up. He made the comparison. I simply (and rightfully) condemned such a comparison as an attempt to unjustifiably harm a little girl's image.

Is it ok to steal from Micheal Vick any more than it is to steal from this innocent little schoolgirl? No, it isn't. I never said that it was. The fact remains, however, that Micheal Vick is a convicted felon and a jerk, while this young girl is just an innocent child that misses her pet. More importantly, no one actually stole Micheal Vick's animals. Given that Micheal Vick wasn't actually the victim of any such theft, then it is impossible to sympathize with him as I do with the young girl whose beloved pet was actually stolen. Actually...as in, actually happened, for real...IRL, as in real events that really happened as opposed to hypothetical thought exercises that never happened.

It seems like some people are arguing that if I sympathize with this girl for having her pet stolen, then that means that I should sympathize with Micheal Vick for something that never happened to him. Ridiculous. I don't sympathize with people for what might, hypothetically speaking, happen to them.

Empathizing with a young girl who had her pet stolen is not the same thing as empathizing with a convicted felon that didn't have anything stolen from him. It's not even close.

The overall message that MrGeezer is attempting to convey; the cumulative result of his expression is that the thief that stole this girl's rabbit is a hero and the the little girl is a sadistic animal abuser.

If you didn't say it was OK to steal from Michael Vick, then, again, why did you mention - repeatedly - that the victim in this case was an "innocent girl"? People don't use adjectives without cause. Within the context of one as the victim of theft, you objected to the hypothetical in which the victim is Michael Vick, rather than an "innocent girl". Why?

GabuEx

I objected to the girl being compared to Micheal Vick because it is an unfair attempt to maliciously defame her.

I used the word, "innocent" to describe the girl because she is, as a matter of irrefutable fact, innocent. She is innocent. She is a girl. She is young. She goes to school. Therefore, she is an innocent young schoolgirl. There is nothing wrong with using descriptive adjectives.

You wouldn't steal to feed your family if you had no other way to get food? I know that's a big hypothetical, but you can't make an absolute statement on anything when it comes to morality, since under certain circumstances, anything is justifiable.

MystikFollower

Nope. It is better to die honorably than it is to stoop to banditry.

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

You wouldn't steal to feed your family if you had no other way to get food? I know that's a big hypothetical, but you can't make an absolute statement on anything when it comes to morality, since under certain circumstances, anything is justifiable.

dkrustyklown

Nope. It is better to die honorably than it is to stoop to banditry.

I think you'd feel differently if you had a child and wife who were the ones dying because you can't stoop to banditry. At least you can tell em it's a noble death :P..

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Then why, pray tell, would you say this:

"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."

If "it is never, under any circumstances, justifiable to steal anything", then what difference does it make if the victim is an innocent little girl or Michael Vick, hmm? Why would you take the time to describe her as "innocent" - repeatedly, I might add - if indeed stealing from one who is guilty would be equally unjustifiable?

You also seem to be deliberately avoiding an understanding of what MrGeezer is actually saying, but that's a different issue.

dkrustyklown

One more thing. MrGeezer is the one that is comparing the innocent young schoolgirl to convicted felon Micheal Vick, not me. I pointed out that such a comparison on the part of MrGeezer only serves to paint a little girl in a bad light. He brought it up. He made the comparison. I simply (and rightfully) condemned such a comparison as an attempt to unjustifiably harm a little girl's image.

Is it ok to steal from Micheal Vick any more than it is to steal from this innocent little schoolgirl? No, it isn't. I never said that it was. The fact remains, however, that Micheal Vick is a convicted felon and a jerk, while this young girl is just an innocent child that misses her pet. More importantly, no one actually stole Micheal Vick's animals. Given that Micheal Vick wasn't actually the victim of any such theft, then it is impossible to sympathize with him as I do with the young girl whose beloved pet was actually stolen. Actually...as in, actually happened, for real...IRL, as in real events that really happened as opposed to hypothetical thought exercises that never happened.

It seems like some people are arguing that if I sympathize with this girl for having her pet stolen, then that means that I should sympathize with Micheal Vick for something that never happened to him. Ridiculous. I don't sympathize with people for what might, hypothetically speaking, happen to them.

Empathizing with a young girl who had her pet stolen is not the same thing as empathizing with a convicted felon that didn't have anything stolen from him. It's not even close.

The overall message that MrGeezer is attempting to convey; the cumulative result of his expression is that the thief that stole this girl's rabbit is a hero and the the little girl is a sadistic animal abuser.

Um I think his point is, and has been, that the article itself is a joke and that you can't make a serious judgement on the situation at all since half the article is biased to the point of nausea.

if they're going to leave a hand-written note, the person writing should at least have better handwriting.

The overall message that MrGeezer is attempting to convey; the cumulative result of his expression is that the thief that stole this girl's rabbit is a hero and the the little girl is a sadistic animal abuser.

dkrustyklown

The fact that you've managed to completely misunderstand MrGeezer's argument over the course of about a couple dozen posts between the two of you (about half of which was written to tell you what he's actually trying to say) is appalling, even if you account for the fact that we're on gamespot OT where illiteracy seems to be almost endemic. :|

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If you didn't say it was OK to steal from Michael Vick, then, again, why did you mention - repeatedly - that the victim in this case was an "innocent girl"? People don't use adjectives without cause. Within the context of one as the victim of theft, you objected to the hypothetical in which the victim is Michael Vick, rather than an "innocent girl". Why?

dkrustyklown

I objected to the girl being compared to Micheal Vick because it is an unfair attempt to maliciously defame her.

I used the word, "innocent" to describe the girl because she is, as a matter of irrefutable fact, innocent. She is innocent. She is a girl. She is young. She goes to school. Therefore, she is an innocent young schoolgirl. There is nothing wrong with using descriptive adjectives.

:|

I've met children who were far from innocent. Unless this girl is an infant, I think it's a rather broad sweeping brush to paint one as innocent instantly based on age.

There are some children who are rather psychotic/suffer from mental disturbance early on. I am not saying she is one of them, I just find it laughable to say it is a fact (when it is not) that she is innocent because she is young.

There are kids who delight in harming animals. I wouldn't call them innocent.

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

You wouldn't steal to feed your family if you had no other way to get food? I know that's a big hypothetical, but you can't make an absolute statement on anything when it comes to morality, since under certain circumstances, anything is justifiable.

dkrustyklown

Nope. It is better to die honorably than it is to stoop to banditry.

So....you'd seriously send your family to death to ensure you die honorably?

Are you a samurai, or something?

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If you didn't say it was OK to steal from Michael Vick, then, again, why did you mention - repeatedly - that the victim in this case was an "innocent girl"? People don't use adjectives without cause. Within the context of one as the victim of theft, you objected to the hypothetical in which the victim is Michael Vick, rather than an "innocent girl". Why?

Pixel-Pirate

I objected to the girl being compared to Micheal Vick because it is an unfair attempt to maliciously defame her.

I used the word, "innocent" to describe the girl because she is, as a matter of irrefutable fact, innocent. She is innocent. She is a girl. She is young. She goes to school. Therefore, she is an innocent young schoolgirl. There is nothing wrong with using descriptive adjectives.

:|

I've met children who were far from innocent. Unless this girl is an infant, I think it's a rather broad sweeping brush to paint one as innocent instantly based on age.

There are some children who are rather psychotic/suffer from mental disturbance early on. I am not saying she is one of them, I just find it laughable to say it is a fact (when it is not) that she is innocent because she is young.

There are kids who delight in harming animals. I wouldn't call them innocent.

He appears to be that particular kind of "debater" who thinks that a statement is proven by restating it.

It has to be Batman.

Only in OT: Sad story about a girl who lost a bunny turns into a debate about the innocence of little girls.Kenny789

It's more a debate about trying to get a point across to one user. :lol:

And the girl is probably innocent.

[QUOTE="Kenny789"]Only in OT: Sad story about a girl who lost a bunny turns into a debate about the innocence of little girls.DJ-Lafleur

It's more a debate about trying to get a point across to one user. :lol:

And the girl is probably innocent.

lmao

stealing a little girls bunny. How do they not see they are the bad guys here.

So....you'd seriously send your family to death to ensure you die honorably?

Are you a samurai, or something?

Pixel-Pirate

So...you'd seriously violate another person's inherent right to his property just to save your life? Is your fear of death such that you would stoop to terrorizing other people just to stay alive? History condemns the legacy of those that do wrong to save their own skins, while history honors those that sacrifice themselves for what is right.

There is no uncertainty. Stealing is wrong. It is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. The concept of justified theft is an oxymoron. It is an inherent impossibility.

lmao

stealing a little girls bunny. How do they not see they are the bad guys here.

The_Gaming_Baby

Yeah, yet we have several posters here trying to spin the situation into the little girl being the bad person and the thief being the good person.

Why do they have such difficulty understanding that stealing a little girl's bunny is a bad thing?

[QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"]

lmao

stealing a little girls bunny. How do they not see they are the bad guys here.

dkrustyklown

Yeah, yet we have several posters here trying to spin the situation into the little girl being the bad person and the thief being the good person.

Why do they have such difficulty understanding that stealing a little girl's bunny is a bad thing?

Why do people keep thinking that. MrGeezer was making a point that I fully agree with. The author of that article has skewed the facts so much to be biased towards the girl that it almost removes all credibility. I'm not defending theft, and I don't think it was right for him to steal her bunny, but I can't make a true judgement on this considering I only have a skewed version of events that is making a point to make the man into a complete villain. Over zealous, yes, but heartless thief, that's up for debate.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"]

lmao

stealing a little girls bunny. How do they not see they are the bad guys here.

MystikFollower

Yeah, yet we have several posters here trying to spin the situation into the little girl being the bad person and the thief being the good person.

Why do they have such difficulty understanding that stealing a little girl's bunny is a bad thing?

Why do people keep thinking that. MrGeezer was making a point that I fully agree with. The author of that article has skewed the facts so much to be biased towards the girl that it almost removes all credibility. I'm not defending theft, and I don't think it was right for him to steal her bunny, but I can't make a true judgement on this considering I only have a skewed version of events that is making a point to make the man into a complete villain. Over zealous, yes, but heartless thief, that's up for debate.

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

So....you'd seriously send your family to death to ensure you die honorably?

Are you a samurai, or something?

InEMplease

So...you'd seriously violate another person's inherent right to his property just to save your life? Is your fear of death such that you would stoop to terrorizing other people just to stay alive? History condemns the legacy of those that do wrong to save their own skins, while history honors those that sacrifice themselves for what is right.

There is no uncertainty. Stealing is wrong. It is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. The concept of justified theft is an oxymoron. It is an inherent impossibility.

If violating his right to property costs him a $1 apple or something, and was necessary for my survival, hell yes. You would be stupid not to. Survival is survival, and there are no rules in the animal world. Also, stealing an apple woudn't be terrorizing them...

I'm not telling you to go steal stuff from the grocery store because you're hungry. I'm telling you that when one is left with no other choice than steal or die, most people will go with steal, and I'd bet my left nut even you would do so, dkrustyklown.

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

Yeah, yet we have several posters here trying to spin the situation into the little girl being the bad person and the thief being the good person.

Why do they have such difficulty understanding that stealing a little girl's bunny is a bad thing?

twitchmonkey399

Why do people keep thinking that. MrGeezer was making a point that I fully agree with. The author of that article has skewed the facts so much to be biased towards the girl that it almost removes all credibility. I'm not defending theft, and I don't think it was right for him to steal her bunny, but I can't make a true judgement on this considering I only have a skewed version of events that is making a point to make the man into a complete villain. Over zealous, yes, but heartless thief, that's up for debate.

Well I can accept that point cause I agree that the theft was wrong as well. But that's not the point MrGeezer, myself, and others have been trying to make in this thread. The article itself is practically worthless so while I concede that the theft was wrong, I can't make any judgement about how "cruel" or "bad" this "heartless" thief really is.

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"][QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

Why do people keep thinking that. MrGeezer was making a point that I fully agree with. The author of that article has skewed the facts so much to be biased towards the girl that it almost removes all credibility. I'm not defending theft, and I don't think it was right for him to steal her bunny, but I can't make a true judgement on this considering I only have a skewed version of events that is making a point to make the man into a complete villain. Over zealous, yes, but heartless thief, that's up for debate.

MystikFollower

Well I can accept that point cause I agree that the theft was wrong as well. But that's not the point MrGeezer, myself, and others have been trying to make in this thread. The article itself is practically worthless so while I concede that the theft was wrong, I can't make any judgement about how "cruel" or "bad" this "heartless" thief really is.

As I said before, I won't attempt to make a judgment on the thief's rational for committing the crime. So I agree with you there. And I think krustyklown would too, from what I've seen of his recent posts. But then again, I've only read his more recent posts, so I can't say this for sure. I will say both sides seem slightly confused on what the other's point is.