[ SECRET POST #1791 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1791 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________



21.


__________________________________________________



22.


__________________________________________________



23.


__________________________________________________



24.


__________________________________________________



25.


__________________________________________________



26.


__________________________________________________



27.


__________________________________________________



28.


__________________________________________________



29.


__________________________________________________



30.


__________________________________________________



31.


__________________________________________________



32.


__________________________________________________



33.


__________________________________________________



34.


__________________________________________________



35.


__________________________________________________



36. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



37.


__________________________________________________



38.


__________________________________________________



39.


__________________________________________________



40.


__________________________________________________






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 08 pages, 179 secrets from Secret Submission Post #256.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

Where is any statistical evidence in support of your claim that PETA's campaigns effective disseminate a sentiment of agreement with their principles throughout the population? Consumption of fur, consumption of meat, pet ownership, and animal testing have all either remained stable or increased throughout the time period in which PETA has campaigned.

Thus, the only argument you could possibly make is that perhaps it has decreased within specific populations, or that they have not increased as much as they might have without the PETA campaigns.

Which, without any evidence whatsoever in support, is in no way credible or merits consideration.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

To cut a long conversation short.

You're absolutely right, I don't have any hard evidence to support my supposition, except a hearty 'reckon and suggested vector.

However, what evidence to do you to suggest that their campaigns are ineffective? Because I've had this argument more then a few times, and have yet to see a single study focusing on PETA and their advertising methods in particular, tackling the effectiveness or lack thereof possessed by them.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

I know I'm right, or you would have provided it the first time I reminded you that as the one making the positive assertion, you have the burden of proof.

And I have already provided my evidence: that all of the things against which they are opposed in fact have a rising or stable incidence in the societies they are attempting to influence. Given they began campaigning against fur in the 1980s, they've had more than sufficient time to make an appreciable impact. They have not made one.

You argue, of course - and in absence of your own supporting evidence - that this data is insufficiently nuanced, and uncontrolled. Be that as it may, in the absence of contradictory evidence, it can fairly be seen as an indication (though not proof) that their methods are ineffective, or at the very least that an assertion that they are effective is extremely suspect.

[sandor051.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

You're talking about a very large industry, and a huge number of uncontrollable market forces to take into account. Whereas compared to that PETA are one comparatively small company. Which renders a wide ranging comparison from such a broad baseline entirely unindicative of any particular effect or trend.

I'd disagree that I'm the only one making a positive claim here. We both are given that we have no real idea of the particular effect of the marketing campaign - which aren't considered to default to ineffective?

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

Nah, at this point I'm going to step away from the conversation, because you're just trying to shift burden of proof - the last recourse of someone who has no logical or evidential basis for their claims.

When discussing cause and effect, this simply can't be done. You are claiming an effect - a particular effect, at that - as opposed to "some/any effect" - that has a specific cause. My position is the default, "no effect unless proven otherwise". You can't say "this happened", and when your opponent responds "there is no evidence whatsoever that that happened and indeed some evidence that it didn't", come back with "prove it didn't happen". You cannot prove negative; this conversation has entered celestial teapot territory. Thank you for ceding that your assertion was baseless conjecture (which you're certainly entitled to, but shouldn't be expected to convince others), and have a wonderful afternoon.