I had a professor who was native american, and yeah, he spoke quite honestly about how they breed the dogs for meat, and the puppy is more tender. He said his friends would always joke with him when he went back to the reservation for holidays. I can’t remember the exact joke, but it was something about how he would have to dig deep into the stew because the puppy was at the bottom.
would have to dig deep into the stew because the puppy was at the bottom
I am having a hard time getting that.
If puppy is more tender, it would be because its tissue is lighter and composed more of fat and areolar tissue than muscle and dense connective tissue. Then in a stew full of meat from multiple ages of dog and what not, the puppy should be more buoyant than the dog, making it float higher.
How then, does the puppy end up at the bottom?
I think you misunderstood the argument.
It’s okay to eat puppies and kittens because they haven’t accumulated as much 😌
I had a professor who was native american, and yeah, he spoke quite honestly about how they breed the dogs for meat, and the puppy is more tender. He said his friends would always joke with him when he went back to the reservation for holidays. I can’t remember the exact joke, but it was something about how he would have to dig deep into the stew because the puppy was at the bottom.
I am having a hard time getting that.
If puppy is more tender, it would be because its tissue is lighter and composed more of fat and areolar tissue than muscle and dense connective tissue. Then in a stew full of meat from multiple ages of dog and what not, the puppy should be more buoyant than the dog, making it float higher.
How then, does the puppy end up at the bottom?
You’re asking the wrong person.
Is the argument that ethics are a function of accumulation?