I think the Occam's Razor to this approach is that if everyone is perfectly happy with the contract then nobody would be upset when $X disappears from the DAO since it is operating as intended. The fact that people are upset clearly means the contract was presented to them with the expectation that either this cannot happen, or should it happen, they will be reimbursed.
Yes, but on the other hand lots of people are unhappy stock trading, and that doesn't mean these trades are invalid. Just because something happens that you didn't anticipate, doesn't mean you were stolen from or defrauded.
>Just because something happens that you didn't anticipate, doesn't mean you were stolen from or defrauded.

>doesn't mean you were stolen from or defrauded.
Just because it doesn't imply it (in all cases) doesn't exclude it as a possibility.
The intent of the DAO is clearly not for a hacker to misappropriate all the funds into their own pocket.
Perhaps you can argue that the DAO specifically allowed this to happen (thus it is not theft).
Yet at the same time we recognise this act as morally reprehensible.
If we find it morally wrong then do we not have a duty to correct it?
Perhaps you can argue that the DAO specifically allowed this to happen (thus it is not theft).
It's not just that it allowed this to happen. It's that the whole point of the thing -- the idea that was supposed to herald a world-changing revolution in which "dumb" contracts and their associated baggage of lawyers, courts and governments would become permanently obsolete -- was that it was presented explicitly as saying "if a human interpretation of the human-language description of the contract disagrees with the executed instructions of the code implementing the contract, the code wins, period". Along with a caveat, of course, about how you better be damn sure about your code, because if you screw it up and lose money, it's your fault for writing bad code and you deserve to lose your money.
So now they're trying to walk that back and say that maybe they should have a mechanism for dealing with this contract that had a bug that lost them a bunch of money. Which undermines the entire selling point of the system.
Edit: If you cannot see that this is something new then I'm not sure that we can have a productive conversation on this topic.