I'm not sure where you get the idea that expressing something can't be stupid. Some things are just stupid, and those lyrics are a fine example of stupid. In fact, I was expressing my opinion, how I feel, MY SOUL!

The candor of thoughts is fine, maybe it may illuminate and foster new ideas, but how about trying euphemisms next time, well at least with respect to someone's art. Critique instead jest is more welcoming.

I don't think your sorry excuse for a post could possibly be considered art...art is more personal that normal speech or "banter" and is therefore deserving of more respect, despite the fact that both are in fact "expressions". I'm not saying you have to like it...hell you can even say you hate it...im just asking that we all show each other some kind of respect.

But, im sure this kind of argument does not belong in Vegangelica's thread, so please, if you'd like to discuss this more thoroughly, PM me.

I haven't read it through yet, but I'm going to comment as I read.

Although this is in the form of a poem, I don't feel any type of flow or anything. I'm going to read and criticize it in the form of a story or something along the lines of it.

---------

I think it's unnecessarily long, by the first few verses, the point is pretty much made. I like that the daughter is worried about what her father thinks and that he loves her unconditionally. It eventually becomes redundant.

I think if you add some more parts inbetween the redundant verses, it could make for a cute children's book. Some of the parts are a bit disturbing, such as being hairy all over and having four of the same limb instead of two arms and two legs. Maybe that can be made a bit less intense.

THEN it could make for a cute children's story.

to be honest, i think everyones being harsh on you for your vegan beliefs.
its your beliefs your not forcing them on anyone. your writing songs about something close to you. which most artists do.. am i right? or am i wrong?
i like "I" in a certain way, im in no way vegan, or vegetarian etc. but it takes will power & passion for you to make such a drastic life choice.
anyways your lyrics make me feel like

i especially love this part, it makes me pretty ashamed to be an omnivore, and it makes me think more about the animals life & treatment.

It's true, people are being harsh, but I'm also not one to display my beliefs the same way you do, Erica.

That's a choice, though, and I'm not belittling you in anyway for that. <3

i just think its shit how everyones getting on her back and critising her life choices.
does it affect their lifes? no.
so why do yous particuarly care about anything behind the lyrics?
there isnt any reason to.
VEGANGELICA's one of the sweetest people on this forum, very level headed, so i know she wont say anything back. so i feel its my place just now. to put across my opinion in some way or other.

also i love the rhythm & how the rhyming isnt blatant in most stanzas.
i apreciate the passion you have in your peom's/song's its obvious throughout your thread, i havent read all your posts, but i will. i usually steer well clear of this section as im not into this kind of thing. but your a creative soul & i well curiousity killed the cat didnt it :)?

:D

edit: sorry for the spelling mistakes. im shit at english

I agree with you, for the most part.

Hello Unfan,
Thank you for giving your feedback on "Path," which you say seems illogical or unrealistic to you based on how you view the relationships that humans have with children in their care vs. with other animals whom people kill and eat.

I had hoped you might find the subject matter of "Path" interesting, because you appear to like philosophy and I view "Path" as an example of a thought exercise commonly found in the ethics branch of philosophy. I intended the lyrics to cause readers to evaluate their values and think about how they decide whether some being, such as a human child vs. a calf, should have "moral standing," which means that the being's continued existence or welfare is valuable in itself, and its interests and well-being must be weighed when moral agents (humans) decide what is permissible to do to that being.

You describe that you weren't able to walk this "path" in the song because you felt it was unrealistic, and you gave your reasoning. I feel there are some fallacies in these reasons you gave:

(1) You wrote: "In the given scenario regardless of what animal-like parts she has she'll always be the daughter, a direct offspring. This is totally different than the relationship we have between other animals." In the song I dispensed with the notion that direct genetic lineage is necessary by saying that if the child were adopted the dad would still love her, so whether she is a direct offspring or not doesn't matter. People love adopted children as much as their biological children. I added this into the song because I wanted to show that extreme genetic similarity is not required in order to have feelings of love for some being.

You seem to be overlooking that some people love not just human children but also non-human animals, both pets and "livestock." Their feelings for animals is not that different from the relationship with human children and in many cases, I would argue, is the same. Some people want non-human animals to have long and happy lives, not for the sole benefit of humans, but for the benefit of the animals themselves.

(2) You wrote, "Paternal and maternal instincts use a different set of interests than the survivalist instincts we'd use to determine what animals should or shouldn't be eaten." While I agree parental instinctual feelings can be very strong, I feel it is incorrect to say that there are "survivalist instincts" beyond "it tastes good" that we humans use to determine what animals should or shouldn't be eaten. Throughout history, humans have eaten members of every single edible species they could get their fingers and opposable thumbs on...ranging from Neanderthals (based on evidence of bone scrapes that appear to be knife cuts) to other humans (cannibalism), to dogs, cats, dolphins, gorillas, chimps, parrots, etc. etc. However, which animals a particular person views as food is determined primarily by culture. People are *taught* what animals, if any, are viewed as "food animals," and people can decide based on a variety of reasons which, if any, they wish to eat.

If eating particular species of animals were "instinct," then we would not need to teach people which animals to eat. This is why the following video, an advertisement by an Australian red meat group, is so funny: the argument it makes is that eating red meat is "instinctive," yet if eating red meat were truly instinct then the group would not be paying lots of money to try to convince people of their supposed "instinct" for wanting and eating red meat:



Here is a good quote from a philosophy book that discusses the biological fact that food survivalist instincts do not include exactly what types of animals we humans eat (or whether we eat animals at all):

Unfan, my reason for discussing all this is to show that I feel your opposition to the subject matter of "Path" is based on misunderstandings of human nature and emotional capacities.

Hey VeggieLover,
It's true, I'm not mad at the Unfan for saying he feels "Path" is stupid, because I realize people use what they know, understand, and feel to decide whether some reasoning path has merit or not...and his background is probably different than mine. Plus, I am always grateful when he reads my stuff because that takes time on his part, and his time, your time, our time is precious, I feel.

Veggie, I know you were feeling angry, but I feel it isn't true that the Unfan is stupid and I recommend you not call him stupid or other names. He has done a good job in my thread of always saying that a *poem* is stupid or illogical (rather than calling me stupid--which he may feel I am!). I encourage you to imagine a wall between what he says and him as a person. I agree that his saying some poem is "stupid" probably won't win awards in a "Poetry Analysis" journal...and the word is usually used with the intention of being hurtful...but he did at least go on to explain why he felt this way, which gave me a chance to critique his critique. I agree he did do a good job of picking his username!

Hi Dr. Seussicide, thanks for your input! I agree with you.

Helloooo, Sugar!
Thanks for reading. I agree, "Path" sounds "lumpy" when it is read...all I can say is that it flows better with the tune than when read in one's mind (I feel). Also, Path *is* long and I agonized over its length. I wanted to take away "human traits" one by one and ended up getting rather methodical about it, which translated into unnecessary length. Brevity is not my strong point, if you haven't noticed. Though I know you have.
--Veg
<3 (P.S. 1st mammogram today. So, no party hat. It's just a heart today) :)

kayleigh,
I'm glad you liked "I" because that one is one of my favorites since it describes my own journey to becoming vegan. You are right that I am writing songs about something close to me. I can't force people to take my beliefs as their own, but I do want to share my reasons for having my beliefs so that people perhaps think of issues they haven't thought of before...just like you said you did after reading that song. I am a strong believer in the concept of "informed consent," which means that when people make their decisions about something I would like them to have a chance to have as much information as they can get on the topic.

Thank you, kayleigh!

--Erica

I don't think some fringe extremist values should change how rational people view the situation. Meat is healthy for consumption and our bodies have evolved to digest it. If people love animals that is fine. I have no issue with those sentiments. I have 3 cats which I love, although I don't view them as my children. I do know that they have emotional needs, like humans, but at the same time I value my life over theirs. So yes, I agree someone can love other animals for the most part I value human lives more.

This doesn't really hold sway one way or the other. This could just as easily be claimed as evidence that early man needed to eat meat to survive, and had to try various kinds based on conditioning.

Being afraid of fire is instinctive so we shouldn't need to teach kids not to play with it. That is why I find fire safety ads to be a hilarious waste of money.

I assume this is more a regional thing anyway. I don't eat certain animals because it isn't customary for one reason or another. For example, if a Korean buffet served real Korean dog meat I'd give it a try. If I were in Japan I'd eat kalamari. However, I assume that both of these animals have nutritional value.

The quote given doesn't discredit my claim that we eat animals for survival, it just notes that we also find animals tasty. The nutritional value of meat can't be denied.