Animal or Vegetable?

[ChristopherSea]

OK. Here goes. Forgive my little ending ditty. This is serious.
Now that youve seen it I have deleted it!

Some vegans vomit fiddleheads Good opener and veracious to boot.Have tried. Emetically poetic or vice versa
emphatically brandishing emphasing what, I wonder. Not sure about word choice here. There must be a better descriptor
their coiled lime fists;
often sparring to uppercut
the masticating omnivores
of domesticated fowl
and beast. Clever but over-wordy and of very uncertain meaning. Omnivore covers the range of comestibles and includes vegetables...so carnivores?

I must confess,
I do eat meat,
like my fellow Hominids,
as my ancient ancestors did. "fellow" and "ancient" are meter-gas...as you are not a cartoon octopus.
I’ve no gun or zeal to hunt; Why is "I have no gun, nor zeal to hunt" better?
I don’t paint still life
on butcher blocks. ...or perhaps it is not. I just CANNOT get a lock on your meter.
I render our earth, both flora and fauna,
on cotton rag in watercolor,
not calfskin vellum
with sable brushes. I am tempted to say well bully for you. I kind of like the blank certainty of conviction in this stanza but it does sound holier than thou...intentional?

Being human
affords us choice
in committing those acts
that humans do.
Some pointing fingers
have murdered still,
albeit a human fetus
or two. Look, I have some concept of what you are trying to squeeze out of this lemon but I just don't think you make a case without leather. It's the inference in the argument that fails to convince...human bad, animals good as a carrot. This last stanza contains the cynical seed of the commitment tree. I think it stands alone. I would not care if you dropped all the prior posturing.

So chris, I came out of my comfort zone with this one. I don't normally care (enough) to comment on "the message" but this has little else. Last stanza only for me.

Thanks anyway for the run through. Some explanation may help you with your queries. Let me preface the piece by stating that this was written in response to a person ‘unfriending’ anyone who eats meat.

When eating becomes politically motivated it reaches an absurdity. The problem with political extremists is their inconsistency and hypocrisy. Some who take up a Vegan life style for political objectives are pro-abortion and just as much killers as those who eat meat. There is no holier than thou attitude on the narrator’s part herein, on the contrary, it is a select group of holier than thou vegans that accuse those who eat meat of being murderers.

In the second stanza, the one that you misinterpreted, the narrator is stating that we are omnivores like the living great apes and we evolved with that mixed diet as our ancestors did. He continues, saying that he does not kill for fun, does not seek every animal product just for the sake of it. In fact, he makes certain humane choices in his life to avoid needless harvest of animals for pleasure. However, they are part of our evolutionary diet!

That stanza sets up the concluding stanza one arguing that no one is holier than the other. We are human; we have freedom of choice. So, there is a lot herein my friend.
Cheers/Chris

---

[quote='ChristopherSea' pid='147641' dateline='1386001044']
OK. Here goes. Forgive my little ending ditty. This is serious.
Now that youve seen it I have deleted it!

Some vegans vomit fiddleheads Good opener and veracious to boot.Have tried. Emetically poetic or vice versa
emphatically brandishing emphasing what, I wonder. Not sure about word choice here. There must be a better descriptor
their coiled lime fists;
often sparring to uppercut
the masticating omnivores
of domesticated fowl
and beast. Clever but over-wordy and of very uncertain meaning. Omnivore covers the range of comestibles and includes vegetables...so carnivores?

I must confess,
I do eat meat,
like my fellow Hominids,
as my ancient ancestors did. "fellow" and "ancient" are meter-gas...as you are not a cartoon octopus.
I’ve no gun or zeal to hunt; Why is "I have no gun, nor zeal to hunt" better?
I don’t paint still life
on butcher blocks. ...or perhaps it is not. I just CANNOT get a lock on your meter.
I render our earth, both flora and fauna,
on cotton rag in watercolor,
not calfskin vellum
with sable brushes. I am tempted to say well bully for you. I kind of like the blank certainty of conviction in this stanza but it does sound holier than thou...intentional?

Being human
affords us choice
in committing those acts
that humans do.
Some pointing fingers
have murdered still,
albeit a human fetus
or two. Look, I have some concept of what you are trying to squeeze out of this lemon but I just don't think you make a case without leather. It's the inference in the argument that fails to convince...human bad, animals good as a carrot. This last stanza contains the cynical seed of the commitment tree. I think it stands alone. I would not care if you dropped all the prior posturing.

So chris, I came out of my comfort zone with this one. I don't normally care (enough) to comment on "the message" but this has little else. Last stanza only for me.

Thank you for the run through. Some explanation may help you with your queries. Let me preface the piece by stating that this was written in response to a person ‘unfriending’ anyone who eats meat.

When eating becomes politically motivated it reaches an absurdity. The problem with political extremists is their inconsistency and hypocrisy. Some who take up a Vegan life style for political objectives are pro-abortion and just as much killers as those who eat meat. There is no holier than thou attitude on the narrator’s part herein, on the contrary, it is a select group of holier than thou vegans that accuse those who eat meat of being murderers.

In the second stanza, the one that you misinterpreted, the narrator is stating that we are omnivores like the living great apes and we evolved with that mixed diet as our ancestors did. He continues, saying that he does not kill for fun, does not seek every animal product just for the sake of it. In fact, he makes certain humane choices in his life to avoid needless harvest of animals for pleasure. However, they are part of our evolutionary diet!

That stanza sets up the concluding stanza one arguing that no one is holier than the other. We are human; we have freedom of choice. So, there is a lot herein my friend.

As for your suggestions, I think fanatically would better serve me than emphatically. I originally had carnivores, but more biologically correct is omnivores. Since this is a poem and not Zoology treatis, I could change it back. Yes, 'I have' and 'nor' do sound better. There was an 8-syllable count per line at one point and I can see if it can be restored. An edit shall come soon.

Thanks again, Cheers/Chris