You've picked apart the use of one word, "stolen", used seemingly in place of "inadvertent" earlier in the article. You haven't refuted the logical premise of the article in any meaningful way. This isn't a smoking gun refuting the point of the article.
The fact is that inadvertent infringement, such as someone copy/pastes a few lines of code from GPLed code without awareness of its origin, does not impose a requirement on the entire work. It merely means you either rewrite the offending code (call it "stolen", "borrowed", "misplaced", "inadvertently copied", whatever you want), obtain the code under a different license from the original author (this is entirely plausible, and I've sold licenses in the past in this way on code I held the copyright to and licensed under the GPL), disable that feature, stop distributing the code entirely, or whatever you want to do. You simply are not forced to GPL your code, and it's FUD to suggest that a license would somehow force you to do so.
I'm not saying the article is the best written or most coherent defense of the GPL ever, but its primary premise is correct. You can't "accidentally" GPL your codebase by incorporating a piece of GPL code.
The fact is that inadvertent infringement, such as someone copy/pastes a few lines of code from GPLed code without awareness of its origin, does not impose a requirement on the entire work. It merely means you either rewrite the offending code (call it "stolen", "borrowed", "misplaced", "inadvertently copied", whatever you want), obtain the code under a different license from the original author (this is entirely plausible, and I've sold licenses in the past in this way on code I held the copyright to and licensed under the GPL), disable that feature, stop distributing the code entirely, or whatever you want to do. You simply are not forced to GPL your code, and it's FUD to suggest that a license would somehow force you to do so.
I'm not saying the article is the best written or most coherent defense of the GPL ever, but its primary premise is correct. You can't "accidentally" GPL your codebase by incorporating a piece of GPL code.