FW: Vegan prescriptivism

[Frank Abate]

This is off-topic, except for my btw on the pron issue, so hit delete if you
want:

RE what A Murie says below, what has always puzzled me about vegan issues
(I've only heard it with "hard g", btw) is why vegan folks don't want
animals to be used, but are OK with veggies.  Veggies are or were living
things, too.  My point is, we need to eat to live, and the fact that humans
can digest meat and have canine teeth suggests that evolutionarily we are
built for it.  And if, in addition, we raise our own meat, where's the
problem, assuming no animal cruelty is involved?

I'm happy for anyone to do what they please, but philosophically do not
understand why they should be troubled about what I want to do.

Just wondering,

Frank Abate

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]On Behalf
Of sagehen
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 12:44 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Vegan prescriptivism


>Just ran across this site which promotes 'animal friendly' alternatives to
>common sayings.  Includes suggestion that you say "I have a bean to pick
>with you" rather than "I have a bone to pick with you."

Why would vegan sensibilities be less offended by substituting  our friends
the veggies in expressions that are somehow now not "animal friendly?"
Would "that play was a real pumpkin" improve on "it was a turkey"?
Perhaps ragweed & poison ivy would qualify as substitutes for dogs and
snakes.
A. Murie