Superficial research ruins my point

A terse post at Crescat Sententia refers to the "extortion" practiced by the proprietor of Save Toby. Save Toby is of course, completely fake. It's not real. There is no real rabbit, and it doesn't seem that people are even really donating money.

At least, that's the Snopes version of the story, the version I believed when I started writing this post. But I just read the NBC news story which the Crescateer mentions, and that article treats Save Toby as real. The basis on the word of the sites creators, without the reporter actually being shown the rabbit in question. I still find the Snopes debunking to be persuasive, but the NBC story is more recent, and brings some "facts" to light which Snopes doesn't address.

On the off chance that the site is real, my quick ethical take is that I don't think there's a moral obligation to be a vegetarian, I think the people running the site (if real) are people I wouldn't want to associate with, though I can't really articulate what they're doing wrong. As the Snopes entry notes, anyone donating money is behaving pretty stupidly, since even if it's real the same money could save far more non-Toby rabbits.