h a l f b a k e r y
Compound disinterest.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
The basic mix is 25% dog, whipped to a froth, 25% cat, diced, 20% parakeet, minced, and the remaining 30% lizard and fish sauce (both freshwater and salt). The pet amounts can be layered or fully blended to create a product that will satisfy any personality. Additional pets can be added for various surcharges.
For instance, a dollop of seahorse with Bengal tiger would probably only amount to %2 of the total pet mass but could bring a luxurious flavor to the more discriminating pet owner. There is no reason, in the modern world, with modern resources, to commit to a specific brand of pet, especially one that demands care. All blended pets are 100% preserved in an acrylic block and are guaranteed for life. Paperweight sizes available as well, which allow you to bring your pet to any workplace.
Contrast: Pet Poltergeist
Pet Poltergeist
[zen_tom, Oct 17 2007]
Composting Livestock Mortalities
http://www.oardc.oh...fabe/composting.htm
[Ander, Oct 18 2007]
Annotation:
|
| |
recipe/flavour - see Meta, then help file,
then do the right thing.
ps welcome
[mylodon] if you are "new". |
|
| |
But [xenzag], surely it would only be a recipe if someone were planning to eat it. The fifty-year guarantee suggests otherwise. |
|
| |
This is not a recipe or a flavor! This is a genuine mixed and blended pet. You can't get these with GE or hybridization because physically it is impossible to mix the genes -- unless you use a blender. |
|
| |
Put it in a nice, lexan cylinder, and you will have a pet that persists through decades. |
|
| |
gross out humor that isn't funny. |
|
| |
I read this as a satire of the disrespectful way people deal with their pets now, with a bit of "pet rock" thrown in. ("If you're so obsessed with the race of your pet that it becomes the main thing you're interested in, you might as well just keep a mix in salt brine.") It doesn't quite work (as per the audience reaction), but it's not gross-out humor, cruel, or a recipe. |
|
| |
Yes it is gross. Yes, it may read as satire. But the real problem is with the idea. We are all made of pretty much the same ingredients. Some sugars, some protiens, some amino acids, some lipids, a lot of water. |
|
| |
If you want layered pet mix, over time this will settle with complex proteins on the bottom, miscible sugars dissolved in the brine and lipids at the top (completely ignoring reactions between ingredients). If you want blended, layers will similarly seperate out, it is a lose-lose situation. Knowlege of lexan and not specific gravity, I smell a rat! |
|
| |
grind pets and pour (formerly salt water) acrylic over them. |
|
| |
Gives new meaning to 'Meow Mix.' |
|
| |
Which raises another question: what would I feed it? |
|
| |
Whoops. There's no reason to use salt specifically. I was just thinking of it because I was eating bacon at the time. I've changed it to acrylic, which should work better. |
|
| |
I've seen similarly bad ideas that managed to get a much better reaction - and I don't really see how this is any different from many of them, with the exception that it's not cute or sentimental, is written using actual words (arranged into sentences) and it doesn't reference well rehearsed bakery memes. |
|
| |
Meh for the idea in this instance, but welcome to [mylodon] - I'm a fan of sloths, giant (subversive) ones doubly so. I'm impressed with how well you've taken the criticism and in my mind, I'm personally [+]ing you for that. |
|
| |
I also quite enjoyed the concept of "dog froth" but in this instance, I'm sure I'm in a distinct minority! |
|
| |
In the meantime, console yourself with the thought that while vitrified "pet pâté" was always going to be a particularly difficult concept to sell here, it really, really could have been so much worse. |
|
| |
I think that a lot of trollish ideas are satire. Sometimes it's possible that the author doesn't even recognize it's satire that they are writing. For instance, they have some funny feeling that the idea of the material possession of living things as pets is somehow analogous to the higher level of possession of the materiel such as consumption of flesh. So writing an idea about some mechanically masticated blend of pets is funny to them. That's not to suggest that this poster is not a conscious operator and didn't realize that what was being written was ironic, but is perhaps an explanation to why some perfectly satirical ideas are so badly and insensitively written. That is, most good satire should have some sort of indication that it is in fact satire, and that the writer is a satirist and not a sociopath. |
|
| |
In this example the latter part of this sentence, //There is no reason, in the modern world, with modern resources, to commit to a specific brand of pet, especially one that demands care.//, saves it from being misconstrued. |
|
| |
I don't think that this particular idea is badly written, nor gross-out. I don't think it's that deep either. |
|
| |
Just a simple gag - have your ideal pet combination without the hassle of actually looking after it (ah, but it won't be a pet anymore!). The kind of thing one might see as a spoof advert on a pisspoor CBC primetime 'comedy'. |
|
| |
(Not about this idea, and not any of mine either, but very often seemingly obvious satire in a well-written idea gets completely missed by a number of 'bakers, and I don't buy the help file explanation that the majority are ignoring it. Is it a cultural phenomenon, just simply not reading the idea's text carefully or something else?) |
|
| |
Right. Not only "not having to look after it" but doing something decidedly cruel and inhumane to it! Also that CBC thing is dead on. |
|
| |
(Re: Cultural Phenomena: the best halfbakery ideas are explicity written (see best list). Satire does often tend to fall by the wayside.) |
|
| |
//doing something decidedly cruel and inhumane to it!// |
|
| |
Cos it's got animals like cat in it. Yet if someone suggested transferring the contents of a tin of catfood into a clear jar and keeping it on a shelf as a pet we'd think they were weird, but likely not cruel. To be clear, I'm not advocating either. |
|
| |
//a tin of catfood into a clear jar// |
|
| |
Gives me a idea with Christmas coming 'n' all. |
|
| |
"...if someone suggested transferring the contents of a tin of catfood into a clear jar and keeping it on a shelf as a pet we'd think they were weird, but likely not cruel."
In other words, nobody cares about a salmon, but people care greatly about a cat or dog. In your mind it should be just as wrong to kill animals that no one cares about. Would you apply this thinking to baby humans? edit: I mean unborn humans. Sorry to be controversial, just thinking outloud. |
|
| |
It's a difficult moral question - there exist all sorts of scientific glass-jar specimens of baby humans who died due to congenital defects which, while creepy and distressing to look at, aren't considered necessarily immoral (selling such specimens for private consumption might be over-stepping the mark though) |
|
| |
Re cats and dogs, there are areas of the world where these are considered fair game in terms of human consumption. Rabbits are considered as food in many cultures, yet (paradoxically) also cross the food/pet divide in those same cultures. |
|
| |
Personally, I'd prefer not to eat things that I've made friends with – but I'm not sure that's 100% solid ground for an ethical stance either. |
|
| |
I think one thing that might be a good starting point for forming an ethical opinion is having respect for all things, not killing (or blending) them needlessly, or at least not without reasonable cause. i.e. If you are going to kill something for a reason, make sure the reason is justifiable. It's again, not ideal (e.g. how do you reconcile/define 'reasonable cause', or 'justifiable' in terms of a tasty ham-sandwich?) |
|
| |