Giraffe Killed

Off Topic
101

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It is the ethical obligation of zookeepers to protect their charges. To call it a “cull” is to mistake their role for another. This is not animal husbandry because the zoo animals are not bred and kept domestically for consumption. (If parents want to educate their children, are there no abattoirs available to them in Copenhagen? To use a giraffe for this purpose is, in a sense, pornography.) Zoo animals are for other purposes, and not for this particular end or spectacle.
[/quote]

I disagree, while not an everyday occurrence, it is not rare for zoo’s to cull their herds for genetic diversity.
[/quote]
I respect your disagreement. There are an estimated 7500 animals “culled” in zoos yearly. Many, I presume are rodents and small animals in no danger of extinction. But because something is “not rare” does not make it ethically correct in every situation. In this particular case, I have my doubts, and those doubts are based on the averred issue of “limited resources.” If money is short, they should not be in this business.

My point stands. If you as a parent want to show butchering to your children, go right ahead; visit stockyards and abatoirs. But what takes this event out of purely educational is the garish display on a “rare” animal.
You are entitled to your expressed opinion. IMO, most people could stand to respect nature and its “wild” animals, and behave accordingly when one dies under human protection.

False dichotomy.
I offered alternatives that do not include sending a captive giraffe to its death by predators.
What stopped Copenhagen was a budget priority–somewhere hidden–that cash would be better spent on some other project. [/quote]

Your presumption of this entire issue as being one of lack of resources(specifically money) is incorrect. They certainly have the resources to raise the animal, but the animal would cause problems in the environment it would be raised in. …[/quote]

So you might agree that if they had the money to raise it and others, they should have had the money for vasectomy, or travel to another facility outside Europe, or confinement away from females in estrus?

If you agree, and you do, then there were alternatives other than a pneumatic bolt to the head and public slaughter. Was the decision the cheapest one available, or the correct one?[/quote]

Holding it in a pen alone is absolutely out of the question for them, a herd animal being held in what is essentially isolation has devastating effects on it emotionally, and as I have said multiple times now, they have a ‘quality of life over quantity of life’ approach to their animals. Even the vasectomy still leaves Marius as a younger bull giraffe sharing an enclosure with an elder who was reportedly abusing him.

Maybe they needed to have the foresight of this outcome and abort the birth, but I’ve been told that is something zoos absolutely do not do with most animals because an aborted birth wrecks the mother and sometimes father, which again goes back to ‘quality over quantity’ of life(although I will probably agree that this now starts to get flimsy, because they essentially knew that Marius would live a very short life before he becomes of age to be a target for elder males. Even if that short life was of the highest quality, it’s like they knew he was doomed).

I guess what I’m saying is that I think the correct decision may have just been the cheapest one as well. As for the public autopsy/dissection, that’s going to be entirely subjective, parents that voluntarily took their children to it(and the numerous events like it held in the nearby Copenhagen Museum which apparently has a partnership with the zoo for surplus animals) clearly think it was a great thing because it was attended by many who were active in participating by asking their own questions of the vet in charge.[/quote]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/11/hanna-denounces-slaughter-of-giraffe.html

Well, apparently 40,000 people and a cohort of North American zookeepers disagree rather pointedly with you and with Copenhagen.
[/quote]

I enjoyed the part of the article where he claims that 99 out of 100 European zookeepers would find this disgusting, when it was a decision made by the EAZA as a whole.

Also as you can see this was clearly not a decision made of ‘cost’ because they were offered a great sum of money to not euthanize Marius. Glad you could clear that one up for yourself.

102

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It is the ethical obligation of zookeepers to protect their charges. To call it a “cull” is to mistake their role for another. This is not animal husbandry because the zoo animals are not bred and kept domestically for consumption. (If parents want to educate their children, are there no abattoirs available to them in Copenhagen? To use a giraffe for this purpose is, in a sense, pornography.) Zoo animals are for other purposes, and not for this particular end or spectacle.
[/quote]

I disagree, while not an everyday occurrence, it is not rare for zoo’s to cull their herds for genetic diversity.
[/quote]
I respect your disagreement. There are an estimated 7500 animals “culled” in zoos yearly. Many, I presume are rodents and small animals in no danger of extinction. But because something is “not rare” does not make it ethically correct in every situation. In this particular case, I have my doubts, and those doubts are based on the averred issue of “limited resources.” If money is short, they should not be in this business.

My point stands. If you as a parent want to show butchering to your children, go right ahead; visit stockyards and abatoirs. But what takes this event out of purely educational is the garish display on a “rare” animal.
You are entitled to your expressed opinion. IMO, most people could stand to respect nature and its “wild” animals, and behave accordingly when one dies under human protection.

False dichotomy.
I offered alternatives that do not include sending a captive giraffe to its death by predators.
What stopped Copenhagen was a budget priority–somewhere hidden–that cash would be better spent on some other project. [/quote]

Your presumption of this entire issue as being one of lack of resources(specifically money) is incorrect. They certainly have the resources to raise the animal, but the animal would cause problems in the environment it would be raised in. …[/quote]

So you might agree that if they had the money to raise it and others, they should have had the money for vasectomy, or travel to another facility outside Europe, or confinement away from females in estrus?

If you agree, and you do, then there were alternatives other than a pneumatic bolt to the head and public slaughter. Was the decision the cheapest one available, or the correct one?[/quote]

Holding it in a pen alone is absolutely out of the question for them, a herd animal being held in what is essentially isolation has devastating effects on it emotionally, and as I have said multiple times now, they have a ‘quality of life over quantity of life’ approach to their animals. Even the vasectomy still leaves Marius as a younger bull giraffe sharing an enclosure with an elder who was reportedly abusing him.

Maybe they needed to have the foresight of this outcome and abort the birth, but I’ve been told that is something zoos absolutely do not do with most animals because an aborted birth wrecks the mother and sometimes father, which again goes back to ‘quality over quantity’ of life(although I will probably agree that this now starts to get flimsy, because they essentially knew that Marius would live a very short life before he becomes of age to be a target for elder males. Even if that short life was of the highest quality, it’s like they knew he was doomed).

I guess what I’m saying is that I think the correct decision may have just been the cheapest one as well. As for the public autopsy/dissection, that’s going to be entirely subjective, parents that voluntarily took their children to it(and the numerous events like it held in the nearby Copenhagen Museum which apparently has a partnership with the zoo for surplus animals) clearly think it was a great thing because it was attended by many who were active in participating by asking their own questions of the vet in charge.[/quote]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/11/hanna-denounces-slaughter-of-giraffe.html

Well, apparently 40,000 people and a cohort of North American zookeepers disagree rather pointedly with you and with Copenhagen.
[/quote]

I enjoyed the part of the article where he claims that 99 out of 100 European zookeepers would find this disgusting, when it was a decision made by the EAZA as a whole.

Also as you can see this was clearly not a decision made of ‘cost’ because they were offered a great sum of money to not euthanize Marius. Glad you could clear that one up for yourself.[/quote]

I don’t mind showing information contrary to my biases.

But I guess I missed the part where the Danes said that, despite the higher cost, and the availability of cheaper alternatives, killing him was the better ethical choice, even if it was more expensive. That assertion is carefully hidden, I suppose.
Well, they did not publish the proceedings of the EAZA meeting, but they did print the assessment of reasonable zookeepers, here.

103

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Isaac Bashevis Singer, a Noble Prize winning vegetarian, once pointed out that, “For the animals, every day is Treblinka.”

[/quote]

Isaac should take a trip to the savannah where he might just find the occasion to puke the anthropomorphism right out of him.
[/quote]

He was human being, a human being who had known of far worse than anything you could describe on a savannah.
He did not get his food from the savannah; he did not eat meat from a grocery store either. And he did not criticize others for their choices in this regard, something we should see more of, here.
(And you know me, push, that I am not a vegetarian. Well, maybe by your standards I am. I do come close. Everything I eat died of natural causes.)

On a lighter note, I.B. Singer was at some conference and was asked a question about being a vegetarian: “Are you a vegetarian for ethical reasons or for health reasons?”
He responded quickly, “Oh, surely, for health reasons! The health of the chickens!”

104

What is it with these people? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and it is maculate. Are they on a holy mission?

It is not a good time to be a giraffe named Marius in Denmark

105

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

It is the ethical obligation of zookeepers to protect their charges. To call it a “cull” is to mistake their role for another. This is not animal husbandry because the zoo animals are not bred and kept domestically for consumption. (If parents want to educate their children, are there no abattoirs available to them in Copenhagen? To use a giraffe for this purpose is, in a sense, pornography.) Zoo animals are for other purposes, and not for this particular end or spectacle.
[/quote]

I disagree, while not an everyday occurrence, it is not rare for zoo’s to cull their herds for genetic diversity.
[/quote]
I respect your disagreement. There are an estimated 7500 animals “culled” in zoos yearly. Many, I presume are rodents and small animals in no danger of extinction. But because something is “not rare” does not make it ethically correct in every situation. In this particular case, I have my doubts, and those doubts are based on the averred issue of “limited resources.” If money is short, they should not be in this business.

My point stands. If you as a parent want to show butchering to your children, go right ahead; visit stockyards and abatoirs. But what takes this event out of purely educational is the garish display on a “rare” animal.
You are entitled to your expressed opinion. IMO, most people could stand to respect nature and its “wild” animals, and behave accordingly when one dies under human protection.

False dichotomy.
I offered alternatives that do not include sending a captive giraffe to its death by predators.
What stopped Copenhagen was a budget priority–somewhere hidden–that cash would be better spent on some other project. [/quote]

Your presumption of this entire issue as being one of lack of resources(specifically money) is incorrect. They certainly have the resources to raise the animal, but the animal would cause problems in the environment it would be raised in. …[/quote]

So you might agree that if they had the money to raise it and others, they should have had the money for vasectomy, or travel to another facility outside Europe, or confinement away from females in estrus?

If you agree, and you do, then there were alternatives other than a pneumatic bolt to the head and public slaughter. Was the decision the cheapest one available, or the correct one?[/quote]

Holding it in a pen alone is absolutely out of the question for them, a herd animal being held in what is essentially isolation has devastating effects on it emotionally, and as I have said multiple times now, they have a ‘quality of life over quantity of life’ approach to their animals. Even the vasectomy still leaves Marius as a younger bull giraffe sharing an enclosure with an elder who was reportedly abusing him.

Maybe they needed to have the foresight of this outcome and abort the birth, but I’ve been told that is something zoos absolutely do not do with most animals because an aborted birth wrecks the mother and sometimes father, which again goes back to ‘quality over quantity’ of life(although I will probably agree that this now starts to get flimsy, because they essentially knew that Marius would live a very short life before he becomes of age to be a target for elder males. Even if that short life was of the highest quality, it’s like they knew he was doomed).

I guess what I’m saying is that I think the correct decision may have just been the cheapest one as well. As for the public autopsy/dissection, that’s going to be entirely subjective, parents that voluntarily took their children to it(and the numerous events like it held in the nearby Copenhagen Museum which apparently has a partnership with the zoo for surplus animals) clearly think it was a great thing because it was attended by many who were active in participating by asking their own questions of the vet in charge.[/quote]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/11/hanna-denounces-slaughter-of-giraffe.html

Well, apparently 40,000 people and a cohort of North American zookeepers disagree rather pointedly with you and with Copenhagen.
[/quote]

I enjoyed the part of the article where he claims that 99 out of 100 European zookeepers would find this disgusting, when it was a decision made by the EAZA as a whole.

Also as you can see this was clearly not a decision made of ‘cost’ because they were offered a great sum of money to not euthanize Marius. Glad you could clear that one up for yourself.[/quote]

I don’t mind showing information contrary to my biases.

But I guess I missed the part where the Danes said that, despite the higher cost, and the availability of cheaper alternatives, killing him was the better ethical choice, even if it was more expensive. That assertion is carefully hidden, I suppose.
Well, they did not publish the proceedings of the EAZA meeting, but they did print the assessment of reasonable zookeepers, here.

[/quote]

Well, they specifically denied the ‘cheapest’ option(the one where they get paid $680k) because it was a private collector, something they absolutely do not deal with for fear that the animal may live in isolation, or be sold to a circus or hunting reserve. That is the ‘ethics’ of their decision, that no life is better than a potentially awful life when those who offer to buy him refuse to guarantee that they will not sell him away to those lots.

Perhaps this is just the difference between American and European zoos: we will sell surplus animals to anyone who offers, because hey, the animal is still alive.

107

^^not particularly convincing or relevant. You have offered objectionable alternatives whereas I have listed reasonable alternatives to the ones you suggest here. And btw, which reputable US zoo currently sells its surplus to “anyone who offers?”

But here is something helpful from the San Diego Zoological Society:
“Of the nine giraffe subspecies, the Uganda giraffe is the only one that is endangered, now surviving in only a few small, isolated populations in Kenya and Uganda. However, at the Safari Park we have had 115 births so far, with more calves due this year!”

So does this suggest that at the SD Zoo, there may be room for 1 or 2 more, even if they are not endangered?
Did the Danish zoos even ask? Are their lofty standards so much higher than the SD Zoo?
Perhaps these Danish zoos should not be in the business of animal breeding at all.

[edit: intended to follow, with regard and respect, Red04’s post.]

109

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Question for the outraged: if the animal slain and butchered would’ve been, say, a tapir, would the crashing cymbals of mortified indignation have been the same?

I submit that the reason this has generated so much controversy is, like the koala bear, the giraffe is almost everyone’s favorite stuffed animal that sat/sits at the foot of the bed.

Not you, Doc. I know you don’t have stuffed giraffe. Or if you do you’ve stowed him away every time I’ve been there. [/quote]

Well, yes, I did have a stuffed giraffe as a kid.
A stuffed giraffe. That was it. We were so poor my mother had to cut a hole in my pants pocket so I would have something to play with.

Well, a giraffe, and a little helicopter. But I do not argue for the breeding and preservation of helicopters, which are known to eat their young.
If the Danes want to breed tapirs, I would think that they are poorly qualified to breed any mammals, whether even-toed or odd-toed. Pound that in your EAZA and smoke it.

111

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
^^not particularly convincing or relevant. You have offered objectionable alternatives whereas I have listed reasonable alternatives to the ones you suggest here. And btw, which reputable US zoo currently sells its surplus to “anyone who offers?”[/quote]

I will admit to being a little needlessly facetious with ‘anyone who offers’ but there are numerous examples of zoos engaging in such activities. I did however look into it further and it’s hardly just a US problem, apparently the Berlin Zoo and many UK Zoos have a lot of evidence against their ‘care’ for surplus animals.

“The Association of Zoos and Aquariums insists that member zoos adhere to a strict ethics code which restricts the transfer of animals only to other accredited zoos or unaccredited zoos which have shown the “expertise, records management capabilities, financial stability, and facilities required to properly care” for them. (What does accreditation really mean?) Despite this, an investigation revealed that of the 19,361 mammals that left accredited zoos between 1992 and 1998, 38% went to dealers, auctions, substandard unaccredited roadside zoos, hunting ranches, game farms, and private owners.18 Another study, conducted in 2002, showed the same results: many of the leading member zoos were shipping mammals and exotic birds to roadside facilities below AZA standards, as well as providing animals to dealers who reportedly sold to hunting ranches, auctions, and private owners.”

That doesn’t contain the specifics I mentioned, but does outline that it’s certainly not a rare event.

[quote]But here is something helpful from the San Diego Zoological Society:
“Of the nine giraffe subspecies, the Uganda giraffe is the only one that is endangered, now surviving in only a few small, isolated populations in Kenya and Uganda. However, at the Safari Park we have had 115 births so far, with more calves due this year!”

So does this suggest that at the SD Zoo, there may be room for 1 or 2 more, even if they are not endangered?
Did the Danish zoos even ask? Are their lofty standards so much higher than the SD Zoo?
Perhaps these Danish zoos should not be in the business of animal breeding at all.

[edit: intended to follow, with regard and respect, Red04’s post.][/quote]

I don’t know the status of communications between the EAZA and the San Diego Zoo, and have never claimed to. While it is certainly a world famous facility, it is also not without fault.

"In 2003, the San Diego Zoo captured and imported 11 African elephants from their natural habitat in Swaziland, despite the fact that the species is designated “vulnerable” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature9, leaving only 36 elephants in the whole country. Experts working with the Amboseli Elephant Research Project, the longest running study of wild elephants in the world, decried the decision, stating that â??Taking elephants from the wild is not only traumatic for them, it is also detrimental to their health. … No matter how well your zoo may treat the elephants, your visitors would not want to know what those tranquil elephants went through to make it possible for them to be viewed in captivity.â??

Should I summarily discredit all of their animal dealings because they appear to have done something shady in the past? Or should I perhaps consider that I may be working with incomplete information as to why they took the action they did with the elephants, and not jump straight to accusations of animal atrocity?

112

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BigJc wrote:

“I know it’s natural in nature. I’m not an idiot,” he said, "but I don’t need to have some 2- and 3- and 6-year-olds – they cannot understand at that age.

[/quote]

I bristle (kinda) at this nonsense.

I’ve had both my kids at those ages with me during the killing, gutting and butchering of deer and elk.

They can understand PERFECTLY.[/quote]

Yeah but your kids are not city kids :). Or Euro city kids. That’s why the guy said they try to educate them there at the zoo. Not everybody can be cool enough to have their kids exposed to the way of nature that early because they have to live in concrete jungles without wildlife.[/quote]

Well, this was their chance.

Bottom line is it ain’t harmful to a kid. Country or city kid.[/quote]

I agree with what you guys are saying actually…I was more quoting for the other parts of his caveat, and to show that the guy clearly considered the full issue. People like to get on their high horse with animal rights…yet they eat meat and consume products and food that come from power structures that reinforce the poverty of HUMAN BEINGS through violence. You know what an inhumane way is for a giraffe to die? Being mauled in the wild by a pack of lions and eaten alive. How many fat loser grown up children tweeted their disgust on twitter via a cellphone built of tiny plastic parts crafted by children’s hands? And they want to question other people morality because they poked their head in for a minute and saw something shocking to their sheltered lives. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t ponder these things often and pretend like I don’t live in that same world, I just think animals have a pretty fair shake and its actually a miraculous and wondrous indication of human morality that animal cruelty laws even exist. If the cougars won the evolution war we’d all be fucked. So fuck the giraffe, I’m glad he’s dead, frankly he had it good. A few years in a one bunk hilton in the zoo and an instantaneous death, that giraffe had it better than a lot of humans.

113

My wife showed me this a while ago (I assume when it first happened). She was pretty worked up.

Personally I don’t care. Animals die. I grew up in a more rural area and watch animals being butchered as a child. I suppose some here are concerned because this is an “exotic” animal. Fair enough. To me, it’s still “animal.” It doesn’t matter if they “had to” or just “wanted to.” It’s an animal.

My 2 cents.

114

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/11/hanna-denounces-slaughter-of-giraffe.html

Well, apparently 40,000 people and a cohort of North American zookeepers disagree rather pointedly with you and with Copenhagen.
[/quote]

Did an expert really say this in that article?

“It’s not an accepted practice in any zoo, said Hansen, who was a zookeeper for 23 years before beginning work for the association.”

I was told that 100% of the experts agreed with the killing and I was being outright stupid.

115

[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I prefer my kids see and know about these things. My daughter has held the deers leg while I skin it and is none the worse for it. Then she ate the steaks. IMO more people could stand to know that meat doesn’t magically appear in the grocery store.
[/quote]
Well I guess we can agree on something! And even if she doesn’t go out and harvest a deer, she now has a basic understand. I think that’s a good thing.

116

[quote]doublelung84 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/11/hanna-denounces-slaughter-of-giraffe.html

Well, apparently 40,000 people and a cohort of North American zookeepers disagree rather pointedly with you and with Copenhagen.
[/quote]

Did an expert really say this in that article?

“It’s not an accepted practice in any zoo, said Hansen, who was a zookeeper for 23 years before beginning work for the association.”

I was told that 100% of the experts agreed with the killing and I was being outright stupid. [/quote]

You were told neither of those things. I said “100% of experts I have seen weigh in” which I will obviously not say anymore because in the following days I have seen opposition. I also said that I was confident you were not formally educated in biology or zoology AFTER you first tossed out that those opposing you were “obviously uneducated.”

Your posts have invited some inflammatory responses because of the pompous attitude you put forth in all of them.

117

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]doublelung84 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/11/hanna-denounces-slaughter-of-giraffe.html

Well, apparently 40,000 people and a cohort of North American zookeepers disagree rather pointedly with you and with Copenhagen.
[/quote]

Did an expert really say this in that article?

“It’s not an accepted practice in any zoo, said Hansen, who was a zookeeper for 23 years before beginning work for the association.”

I was told that 100% of the experts agreed with the killing and I was being outright stupid. [/quote]

You were told neither of those things. I said “100% of experts I have seen weigh in” which I will obviously not say anymore because in the following days I have seen opposition. I also said that I was confident you were not formally educated in biology or zoology AFTER you first tossed out that those opposing you were “obviously uneducated.”

Your posts have invited some inflammatory responses because of the pompous attitude you put forth in all of them.[/quote]

I don’t seem to understand; I called your opinion uneducated, I did not call you stupid as you did I. Now that you have a better understand of the topic, you still want to hurl insults.

All I was doing was forcing you to think for yourself. Gather the evidence and sort through it; throw out what doesn’t make sense and above all, apply any personal experiences you have above what some expert is telling you. Just because I did not spoon feed you my opinion with my facts does not make me wrong or arrogant.

Here is the take away, regardless of what someone wants you to think, we are all born with an inherent knowledge of right and wrong bestowed to us by our creator. Start with this knowledge, listen and observe for yourself, draw your own conclusions. We can agree or disagree but we need to do it with our own facts.

Despite your disdain for me, have you reconsidered or strengthened your position? Truthfully I care less about your opinion and more about how you got there.

118

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
My wife showed me this a while ago (I assume when it first happened). She was pretty worked up.

Personally I don’t care. Animals die. I grew up in a more rural area and watch animals being butchered as a child. I suppose some here are concerned because this is an “exotic” animal. Fair enough. To me, it’s still “animal.” It doesn’t matter if they “had to” or just “wanted to.” It’s an animal.

My 2 cents. [/quote]

You are entitled to your apathy in this matter, of course. That is not in question.
My 2 cents is: What are the obligations of the zookeepers? Was this “final solution” to their problem an appropriate one, not for you, bu t for their obligation to their charges?

119

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
My wife showed me this a while ago (I assume when it first happened). She was pretty worked up.

Personally I don’t care. Animals die. I grew up in a more rural area and watch animals being butchered as a child. I suppose some here are concerned because this is an “exotic” animal. Fair enough. To me, it’s still “animal.” It doesn’t matter if they “had to” or just “wanted to.” It’s an animal.

My 2 cents. [/quote]

You are entitled to your apathy in this matter, of course. That is not in question.
My 2 cents is: What are the obligations of the zookeepers? Was this “final solution” to their problem an appropriate one, not for you, bu t for their obligation to their charges?
[/quote]

I believe it was. If anything it gave them an opportunity to provide natural food for another of their charges and to educate.

You seem to believe it was unethical, to which you are entitled. I have not seen anything posted to convince me it was, not even by vegetarian yiddish authors.

120

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
“final solution”
[/quote]

Goodwin’s law in action?