a little larger than a photo booth

giant cage on top full of used stuffed animals divided into 3 or more sections

adorable-extremely cuddly lovable in one cage - ugly-stinking abrasive difficult to love in another cage

you enter, insert your credit card

you are then interviewed and rigorously tested with psychological questionnaires. the interview and testing results are posted to the internet.

Registered members get to vote, when inclined on your fitness to be a stuffed animal parent. Their vote can effect the outcome.

Ultimately somehow a judgment is made based on your profile, a decision is made on which animal is released to you, if any at all.

The final pricing is subject to the multiple choice question "How much would you be willing to pay?" and naturally your answer will effect the outcome.

Last thing video from your reaction when bear is dispensed is posted online.
-- vfrackis, Sep 14 2009

Recyclabear Recyclabear_20Insulation
Really they mostly get thrown away, and isn't that what matters? [WcW, Sep 14 2009]

seems in plain English to me posted it from my phone

UB hope i did not catch you on a bad day.

you do not get to choose a stuffed animal one is chosen for you based on how you score
-- vfrackis, Sep 14 2009


Maybe that is better.
-- vfrackis, Sep 14 2009


Not looking to distribute negative energy here.

I am looking to find good homes for otherwise unwanted stuffed animals.

You just have to be deserving that's all.
-- vfrackis, Sep 14 2009


ahh this is a classic. What we have here is a classic example of the invisible article being weighed against the visible article. Why would ownership of a toy, especially a discarded toy be limited to those "of merit" when ownership of a live animal or the right to marry or have children is not. Further what would be a measure of merit for toy ownership, knowledge of fabric? The ability to sew? Clean hands? Some form of emotional dependence?

If you feel that a valid case can be made for a high bar for toy ownership you need to actually make that case by outlining the consequences of failing to have such a standard.
-- WcW, Sep 14 2009


ahh classic!

Consequences

If you are measured as unfit you do not get to adopt a used stuffed animal.

If you are measured as on the borderline of unfit yet somewhat fit, you get one that is easy to love, adorable and clean.

If you are measured as an "Ideal" used stuffed animal potential parent you would be issued an animal that would be considered more difficult to love. Maybe its dirty or smelly or somewhat burned or missing a limb or an eye, over sized maybe?

The ultimate goal is quality of life and treatment long term.
-- vfrackis, Sep 14 2009


You ought to see what [vfrackis]'s kids have to go through to get breakfast.
-- lurch, Sep 14 2009


so toy neglect is an ethical mater? What about tool neglect or car neglect, what if I neglect or abuse my house. Somebody once loved my ancient Schwin, if I let it get run over or rust is that a problem for society? Should BPS come to my house and take my neglected Schwin (a beauty in the rough BTW) to someone who can really care about it repair it and ride it? I bought it for a piddling sum from (apparently) a bike slaver who had a whole paddock of neglected and abused bikes that were set to die in the smelter: Should I have bought all of these poor victims and established a "battered bike home"? And then "adopted" the healthier bikes to "forever homes"?

Somebody has been reading the Velveteen Rabbit far too often. A stuffed animal is a token with little or no actual value outside of the totemic emotional properties individuals attribute them. This is as ephemeral and non-tangible as a dream. It cannot be preserved or protected, and it cannot be bought, sold, or destroyed. Yes death and extinction are scary as is the loss of childhood with age but making fetishes will do very little to relieve this fear and may actually make it worse as the objects naturally suffer the same fate we fear we will suffer.
-- WcW, Sep 14 2009


while grappling with the meaning of life someone mentioned to me that "i should take pride in what i build not what i can buy"

so I have considered all things and among them the importance of having to make something special for it to in fact be something special?

I give you "Stuffed Animal Adoption Booth Live"

There is no lecture here, or formula applied just some bad spelling, poor punctuation and oh some meaning.

//A stuffed animal is a token with little or no actual value// If i was a furry i would be deeply offended WcW stuffed animals are as token as your pants? or half of your left shoe lace or a magazine or your marriage or your first kiss if you see fit to attribute totemic emotional properties to them.
-- vfrackis, Sep 14 2009


A clan of clams.
-- skinflaps, Sep 14 2009


my pants are symbolic of nothing, when they are injured i do not project pain into them, when I am done with them I care not what fate they will meet at the hands of another. If I made them myself, somewhat more than my capability as a seamster, I would feel pride in myself but the object would be no more special to me. This idea centers on the notion that you should desire to purchase a used toy, to love and personify, and should it be apparent that you do not intend to do this with the toy but actually intend to do something else (see link) then you should not be allowed to make the purchase, that you would feel the need for this scrutiny and that others in society would feel obliged to provide it. All in all it seems a very distorted way of looking at a stuffed bag with two eyes. Life, beauty and all that, but don't think that the person who runs back into the burning building for a stuffed toy doesn't have deep seated issues re. sense of self + need for relationship.
-- WcW, Sep 14 2009



random, halfbakery