Candidates for the most pathetic humans on earth

[cheerful_deviant]

I hope to God somebody shoots these assholes, soon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LOS ANGELES -- A Web site promises that a rabbit named "Toby" will be eaten if the site's author doesn't receive $50,000 by the end of June.

The site, SaveToby.com, is filled with photos of the rabbit and even a video.

"Unfortunately, on June 30, 2005, Toby will die," the site's author wrote. "I am going to eat him. ... God as my witness, I will devour this little guy unless I receive $50,000 into my account."

Animal lovers, like Sue Brennan, who runs a shelter called Rabbit Haven in Gig Harbor, Wash., are outraged.

"I think it's purely emotional blackmail and it was all designed to get a reaction," she said. "The reaction he is looking for is money."

She and other animal rights activists are calling for the Web site to be taken down, NBC News reported.

But the Arizona Internet company that provides technical facilities for the site said it will not pull the plug.

"There's nothing illegal about the Web site," said Bob Parsons, president of GoDaddy.com. "It's perfectly legal to eat a rabbit."

Two young men who live on the east coast are behind SaveToby.com. They did not want to be identified, saying they have received death threats. However, they did agree to a phone interview with NBC News.

They said the Web site was no joke. "It's very serious," one of the men said. "If we don't get $50,000, we are going to eat the rabbit."

So how do you save Toby? The Web site says you can either buy merchandise or donate. But the donations link, which uses a third-party service, has been shut down because of pressure from animal lovers.

However, the Web site claims it has collected more than $20,000.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Greed is an ugly thing indeed.

Whenever the would-be shooters of these guys show up, please let them know that they may travel to my home next and find the assholes that helped themselves through my step-dad's truck last night, stealing his briefcase, music, cell phone charger and other miscellaneous things because I forgot to lock it.



~lucky

 

[sweetnpetite]

I am so sorry!

But I think it's funny. In a really sick and twisted way of course, but eating rabbit isn't illegal, it's not even that odd.

It's hardly any more twisted than 4H displays at the fair.

I can't beleive they've made so much money though. Wow. I wonder if they could have made as much with as little effort if there were no rabbit eating and they were raising money for AIDS or Cancer Research. (which, at least they are not claiming to do)

Did they ever promise not to eat the bunny if the money is raised?

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Greed is an ugly thing indeed.

Whenever the would-be shooters of these guys show up, please let them know that they may travel to my home next and find the assholes that helped themselves through my step-dad's truck last night, stealing his briefcase, music, cell phone charger and other miscellaneous things because I forgot to lock it.



~lucky

Sorry Luckster.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think I'll do the same thing, only with a chicken. Think I'll clear my 50 grand?

 

[DrFreud]

I think I'll do the same thing, only with a chicken. Think I'll clear my 50 grand?

You should probably try a duck. Or a gosling.

DrF

 

[cheerful_deviant]

I am so sorry!

But I think it's funny. In a really sick and twisted way of course, but eating rabbit isn't illegal, it's not even that odd.

It's hardly any more twisted than 4H displays at the fair.

I can't beleive they've made so much money though. Wow. I wonder if they could have made as much with as little effort if there were no rabbit eating and they were raising money for AIDS or Cancer Research. (which, at least they are not claiming to do)

Did they ever promise not to eat the bunny if the money is raised?

It's not the eating of a rabbit that's sad, that happens all the time. It's the preying upon peoples emotions for money. It's sad, it's disgusting and it's pathetic.

Preying on peoples emotios for a good cause such as children with MS or the suffering in Africa is painful enough to watch. But for some assholes to put people through the mental anguish for no other reason that they are to lazy to work for a living is moraly repulsive to me.

 

[Liar]

I'm a little torn about this. On one hand, it seems kinda twisted to threaten to kill a cute rabbit if they don't get paid. On the other hand, we kill and eat animals all the time. Moo-moos taste yummy. So why is it upsetting? Because rabbits are cuter? The only thing that is objectively despickalbe here is that they play the cute card to hustle up money.

(Edit: ...which CD just said while I wrote this.)

Most of those that are outraged wouldn't think twice about a trip to the local burger joint.

#L

 

[Liar]

You should probably try a duck. Or a gosling.

DrF

Empty yer wallets, or the gosling gets it.

(She might like what she gets, but that's none of your business.)

 

[BlackShanglan]

It's not the eating of a rabbit that's sad, that happens all the time. It's the preying upon peoples emotions for money. It's sad, it's disgusting and it's pathetic.

Preying on peoples emotios for a good cause such as children with MS or the suffering in Africa is painful enough to watch. But for some assholes to put people through the mental anguish for no other reason that they are to lazy to work for a living is moraly repulsive to me.

Well put, CD. And might I add to the list John Edwards, Sylvia Browne, and all of their repulsive ilk.

Shanglan

 

[yui]

It's not eating the bunny that makes me angry, it's asking for money NOT to eat it that's the pisser. It's emotional blackmail and manipulation if nothing else. What they are doing is morally wrong, if not illegal, according to my personal value system. I hate this kind of stuff. That $20,000 (if they actually raised that much) could have been used for something positive that would benefit many animals/people instead of just a couple of morally bankrupt extortionist.

Mean people suck.

I know I'm making a leap here, but couldn't someone put up a website with their cute little toddler and say I won't spank him if you send money? Spanking isn't illegal either, right?

/end rant

 

[BlackShanglan]

You should probably try a duck. Or a gosling.

DrF

I would, but to eat a gosling properly might take hours. And hours. And hours.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

It's not the eating of a rabbit that's sad, that happens all the time. It's the preying upon peoples emotions for money. It's sad, it's disgusting and it's pathetic.

You know, when I first heard of this story, my initial thought was What a great monument to people's stupidity. The site ought to be preserved.

All those people who gave them the 20,000 in donations deserve to have their emotions preyed upon.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Guess what I had for lunch today, by the way...

 

[rgraham666]

I haven't been surprised by human behaviour since Auschwitz and Dachau.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I was planning on having pork for lunch on Sunday, but I'd be willing to reconsider if you pay me 50,000.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I haven't been surprised by human behaviour since Auschwitz and Dachau.

Aye. Good point. Proof that absolutely anything can seem like a reasonable idea to people under enough pressure, internal or external.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'm, unfortunately, impressed by them. That's a highly innovative and novel thing to do. While I can understand, and even sympathize, with the idea that some feel it's "emotional blackmail", I could say the same for those commercials about starving children in foreign places where the message is repeatedly "Send money, or this child will starve/get sick/die/live without hope."

Given that those are efforts are for the benefit of people (the kids and those working with them), it makes it categorically different, but the message is similar. So, not all forms of "emotional blackmail" are clearly the same--and I think many would agree that some forms of "emotional blackmail" are acceptible, if they're for some good cause.

I wonder if these people having money is a good cause. I wonder if they're intending to use it to survive as well--obviously on the same grounds as improverished nations, but survival nonetheless.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I wonder if these people having money is a good cause. I wonder if they're intending to use it to survive as well--obviously on the same grounds as improverished nations, but survival nonetheless.

The moral distinction I would make is the presence of other options. I have no qualms about people pleading for help when they cannot live on their own. I do not, however, think it likely that these two lads fall into the category of "people absolutely incapable of supporting themselves." They seem more like lazy opportunists.

Shanglan

 

[impressive]

I was planning on having pork for lunch on Sunday, but I'd be willing to reconsider if you pay me 50,000.

Pork on Passover -- now there's a gimmick.

 

[AlteregoID]

The moral distinction I would make is the presence of other options. I have no qualms about people pleading for help when they cannot live on their own. I do not, however, think it likely that these two lads fall into the category of "people absolutely incapable of supporting themselves." They seem more like lazy opportunists.

Shanglan

Definitely since they had the money to create and maintain a website, plus they are selling merchandise, so if they had put any forethought into this at all.. that would mean they had to purchase the merchandise prior to creating the site, etc etc..

There are many other ways they could've earned this kind of money, even a valid internet business.. BUT there are also ways they could've scammed even more money out of people..

The bad thing about it all is the fact that it feels like a scam artist wisened up.. yet it is all perfectly legal.

I have to agree with Joe though, that they had the idea in the first place is ingenius really... Even if I do think they're a couple of bastards.. heh

 

[BlackShanglan]

Oh, I agree that there are many clever scams out there - and at times, to see one well-run is almost like watching art.

But they remain morally repulsive.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Oh, no doubts about it being different... it's whether its significant is the issue for me. 75 degrees and 73 degrees are different, but insignificant for me as a guage of being comfortable. Ultimately, what they're doing isn't a scam. It's not lying. It's not selling things that don't exist. I have to put it in the same category as those radio DJ's in Miami who prank called Castro and, after they got hit with an FCC fine of 400k, put a link for donations on their website. They made well over that amount in a couple of weeks.

Or guy who cashed the fake check from the "you can make a ton of money" scam mails and put the story and a donations link on his website.

Now, they didn't deserve that money either, and essentially they were given money by an amused public who didn't want to see them have to pay it. But they weren't lying or cheating. They were accepting donations for committing a wrong (prank calling people, committing border-line bank fraud).

Now, that isn't to say that I want to see the rabbit get it, just to say that if we strip away our outrage for a moment... they're collecting money (and making money through merchandizing). I can't fault them for that.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Oh, I agree that there are many clever scams out there - and at times, to see one well-run is almost like watching art.

But they remain morally repulsive.

This doesn't even really qualify as a scam. A scam usually involved devieving people and getting their money through deception. These people know exactly what they are spending their money on. They are freely giving money to a couple of guys who are to lazy to work for a living and decided to take advantage of peoples emotions.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Now, that isn't to say that I want to see the rabbit get it, just to say that if we strip away our outrage for a moment... they're collecting money (and making money through merchandizing). I can't fault them for that.

I think your comparisons not perfectly equivalent. In the two that you list, one pays because one is amused. This is more an attempt to extort - one pays because one does not wish to be made unhappy.