MediaBLITZ
We obviously perceive things differently. I think that by choosing not to "act" we aren't actually taking action. Perhaps I'm wrong. If you could specify further that would be great. Lets say you chose to murder someone but you failed, by your own logic you are therefore a murderer even though you didn't murder anyone, is that correct?
In essence your position is that by being passive you are in fact, being active?
You know the only time I've heard a similar argument is when religious folks claim that atheism is a religion . . .
As for your last section. It would be incorrect to say it was stolen as you have no evidence to suggest that it was (what you really have is a lack of evidence, and basing any claim on a lack of evidence is a mistake). You would be responsible for the loss of it, and therefore you can't justifiably claim any injustice was done to you.
Lets get back on track though and actually compare these situations. In the first example, something was
given to you. Regardless of any other factors, you were
given something during an official transaction. It doesn't matter whether you deserve it, or whether the transaction's intent was for you to receive it. It is now in your possession and through no fault of your own.
In the second situation, lets assume someone had actually "taken" the phone (we'll use phone in this example). I feel the difference here is paramount, not to mention blatantly obvious to anyone who has the capability to discern the not-so-fine line. Taking something is an "act". If someone decides to do something, and then proceeds to do so. They are then guilty of whatever the act was - in this case stealing.
I'm not the most eloquent of debaters and I'm far from good at it so perhaps I'm not the person to get this point across to you. I really don't know how to defend my side of the debate against someone who uses the argument that not doing something is doing something