Happy Atheist Forum

Heard it on Euronews.net
The african lion is on the verge of extinction in a country like Kenya.
Come on!
The lion is the most useless wild animal in the animal kingdom!
Who would waste his life trying to save the lion, really?!...
Isn't worldwide poverty a much more serious problem?

If anyone trying to sort out an issue called a halt to it because there are other larger (but completely unrelated) issues out there, nothing would get done. Anyway, what in your estimation is 'useless' about the Lion, or any other creature for that matter? Lions are a part of the biosphere and as such, should be protected along with other forms of life as much as possible. I shouldn't have to tell you why the biosphere and its ecological systems are so important to humanity.

A few thousand species of plant and animal became extinct this year alone. That's a fucking tragedy.

This thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=89756#p89756) shows one use for lions.

Quote from: "karadan"If anyone trying to sort out an issue called a halt to it because there are other larger (but completely unrelated) issues out there, nothing would get done. Anyway, what in your estimation is 'useless' about the Lion, or any other creature for that matter? Lions are a part of the biosphere and as such, should be protected along with other forms of life as much as possible. I shouldn't have to tell you why the biosphere and its ecological systems are so important to humanity.

A few thousand species of plant and animal became extinct this year alone. That's a fucking tragedy.

The term "tragedy" was an overstatement, in my opinion.
Species go because "goddess" Evolution says so.
Lions are useless because they are useless.
Besides, they are indeed disappearing from Africa, now.
But remember this: the entire biosphere is/has always been upside down.
I live in Africa [Johannesburg], for more than five decades.
Lions eat people in Kenya, as in here [Kruger National Park].
Lions are basically already extinct here [only protected in national parks].
Bottom line: lions can go and no ecology will suffer. My humble opinion.

Your post reinforces the mythology of our society. Most people in the world believe this mythology, religious and atheist alike. That is: the world is ours and we may do with it what we will. The world belongs to us but we do not belong to the world. There are very few people left who live in harmony with nature. Our mythology drives us to conquer nature

This isn't necessarily bad, but there are consequences. Overpopulation, pollution, depletion of natural resources, famine, genocide, etc.

Species do die out naturally, but in modern times it is human beings causing their demise. Now species die out not because of the natural evolutionary processes, but because animals are forced out of existence by human beings, and that is sad.

Quote from: "Fininho"Heard it on Euronews.net
The african lion is on the verge of extinction in a country like Kenya.
Come on!
The lion is the most useless wild animal in the animal kingdom!
Who would waste his life trying to save the lion, really?!...
Isn't worldwide poverty a much more serious problem?

This is an example of my pet peeve.  I am annoyed any time people say, why bother with one thing when there are worse things.  I think it is a very harmful outlook to believe that smaller wrongs should be ignored because larger ones exist.

I'm an anti-homelessness activist but I don't think that everyone who chooses to support other causes is wasting their time because homelessness is a worse problem.  I think that if you ignore small wrongs, you become hardened to wrongs in general.  

Why bother saving the lion?  Perhaps it's an attempt to slow the accelerated loss of biodiversity caused by human beings.  Maybe the lion isn't worth saving but what is?  How do we decide what is?  Who gets to decide what is worth saving?

Worldwide poverty is a worse problem but the same actions can't solve both issues.  Saying, "Hey, how about we kill fewer lions whenever it's practical?" to enough people may be enough to save the lion from extinction.  It takes nothing from the struggle to end poverty.  And it's not an "either/or" proposal.  People can decide to avoid killing off lions and work to end hunger and poverty.

Quote from: "Fininho"The term "tragedy" was an overstatement, in my opinion.

Unless you're the person whose disease kills you because the plant or animal which naturally produces an antidote went extinct.

QuoteLions are useless because they are useless.

No predator is useless.  All predators ensure the genetic health of the prey stock, if nothing else.  Other predators cull pestilential animals.  Another function is the prevention of overgrazing followed by desertification.
 

QuoteBottom line: lions can go and no ecology will suffer. My humble opinion.

See above.

Quote from: "tunghaichuan"Your post reinforces the mythology of our society. Most people in the world believe this mythology, religious and atheist alike. That is: the world is ours and we may do with it what we will. The world belongs to us but we do not belong to the world.

The odd thing is, I don't see one word of his that advances this argument.  He's merely expressing apathy.

QuoteSpecies do die out naturally, but in modern times it is human beings causing their demise. Now species die out not because of the natural evolutionary processes, but because animals are forced out of existence by human beings, and that is sad.

It's certainly detrimental to the current biosphere, but it will either stop, or man will himself go extinct.  And once man goes extinct, the process will start anew.  It is only sad from our perspective; the Earth will shake us off as a dog scratches off fleas.

Quote from: "tunghaichuan"Your post reinforces the mythology of our society. Most people in the world believe this mythology, religious and atheist alike. That is: the world is ours and we may do with it what we will. The world belongs to us but we do not belong to the world. There are very few people left who live in harmony with nature. Our mythology drives us to conquer nature

Sounds like someone has read Ishmael (if you haven't you should because you'd like it).

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "tunghaichuan"Your post reinforces the mythology of our society. Most people in the world believe this mythology, religious and atheist alike. That is: the world is ours and we may do with it what we will. The world belongs to us but we do not belong to the world. There are very few people left who live in harmony with nature. Our mythology drives us to conquer nature

Sounds like someone has read Ishmael (if you haven't you should because you'd like it).

Yes, that is where I picked up the idea of all modern people (except the few hunter/gatherer societies left) having the same mythology. I've read the other two in the series as well, "My Ishmael" and "The Story of B." I have to say, I liked  "The Story of B" the best.

Quote from: "tunghaichuan"" I have to say, I liked  "The Story of B" the best.

Me too.

There are the the old arguments.
Nature holds cures which could be forever lost.
No environment no economy.
Forests and oceans keep the atmosphere breathable.
People will pay to see animals and forests.
Mono cultures are vulnerable.

Those things are important, but for me they seem a justification offered to make the uncaring care.
I feel a diverse natural environment is a wonderful thing, I don't care if it is rational or not.
An ever increasing population crowding out the last wild things offers me no inspiration at all.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"There are the the old arguments.
Nature holds cures which could be forever lost.
No environment no economy.
Forests and oceans keep the atmosphere breathable.
People will pay to see animals and forests.
Mono cultures are vulnerable.

Those things are important, but for me they seem a justification offered to make the uncaring care.
I feel a diverse natural environment is a wonderful thing, I don't care if it is rational or not.
An ever increasing population crowding out the last wild things offers me no inspiration at all.

As much as I agree with you on an emotional level, your argument will not sway technocrats bent on extracting every last dollar from the earth, air, and biota, and we both know that.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"As much as I agree with you on an emotional level, your argument will not sway technocrats bent on extracting every last dollar from the earth, air, and biota, and we both know that.

I don't know that I know that, but I don't think rational arguments should be abandoned.
Emotions are used as a powerful motivator for good or ill, if a koala is shown looking confused next to a felled tree it moves people.
It doesn't matter that koalas always look dopey and confused.

Quote"Drilling for oil and gas and other mining activities are prohibited in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which encompasses approximately 99% of Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area".

There are economic arguments for this, but I don't think they motivate people as much as the beauty of the thing.
I pity the technocrat who suggested mining the reef, well I don't really pity them, but, no I wouldn't pity them.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbob-brown.greensmps.org.au%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fpreview%2Fimages%2FDombrovski1.jpg&hash=8ab17b20c1bf55794da890bb00172d4699426a9a)

Pictures like this and passionate argument saved the Franklin River from being drowned.
Reason was used, ancient cave paintings and tourism, but I think people with enough to eat can choose to save such a place just for its beauty.  Hungry people may want more though.

There is a big difference between a lion and, say, an elephant or a rhino.
Lions kill and eat people in Kenya.
People get together with guns and go after the lions to kill them in revenge.
That's why most lions across Africa were decimated for several centuries.
By now, it is too late to save the lion in Africa.
Only enclosed lions - in national parks - will have a reasonable chance of survival.
You can be sentimental about lions, but it will not help.
I know the argument that it was man who invaded the lion's territory.
That is true, but it brought progress and civilisation to Africa and other continents.
Can you argue against this premise?
I don't think so.

Quote from: "Fininho"There is a big difference between a lion and, say, an elephant or a rhino.
Lions kill and eat people in Kenya.
People get together with guns and go after the lions to kill them in revenge.

I can understand that, I might do the same.

Quote from: "Fininho"That's why most lions across Africa were decimated for several centuries.
By now, it is too late to save the lion in Africa.
Only enclosed lions - in national parks - will have a reasonable chance of survival.

Africa is big, three times as big as Australia, it should be able to have some big national parks, a lion in a large national park is pretty much a lion in the wild.  I imagine the migration patterns of prey would cause problems.

Quote from: "Fininho"I know the argument that it was man who invaded the lion's territory.
That is true, but it brought progress and civilisation to Africa and other continents.
Can you argue against this premise?
I don't think so.

Progress towards what?
I think I can argue some peoples idea of civilisation includes making room for wildlife.
The USA protects dangerous animals, and they do kill people.
In Australia deadly snakes, great white sharks, and crocodiles across a huge coastline are protected.
Humanist principles sound good to me, but I don't see them as justifying ever increasing population at the expense of every other species on the planet.

It's the way things are.
Progress was to bring electricity to Africa across vast lands.
Thousands of kilometres of railway tracks.
Roads to transport all that stuff, etc.
Lions would appear and attack men.
Lions lost in great numbers.
The ecologists an environmentalists predict that lions will go extinct within 30 years in Kenya. Maybe less.
And then what?
Then rhinos will go; they are very much an endangered species.
And when populations are all fighting wars for resources, especially water, humans will also go in vast numbers.
What can we do?

Quote from: "Fininho"What can we do?

Well if priests start saying birth control is the devils work, you could give them to the lions.

Your animals are large scale.
I'd suggest a fence, but it would have to be heavy duty.
We have a dingo fence, but then a dingo is not an elephant.

QuoteIt is one of the longest structures in the world and is the world's longest fence. It stretches 5,614 km (3,488 mi)[1] from Jimbour on the Darling Downs near Dalby through thousands of kilometres of arid land ending west of Eyre peninsula on cliffs of the Nullarbor Plain[2]

Lions don't have the slightest chance to make it to the next century.
Population explosion in Africa, plus FAMINE, poverty, and many other plagues will change Africa's landscape for the worse.
You can bet on that.
Collect your pictures of those wild beasts now.
Keep them religiously for your grandchildren.
"Grandpa, what was a lion?"
"A wild beast that lived in Africa a long time ago and ate humans!"
"Oh!..."

Quote from: "Fininho"There is a big difference between a lion and, say, an elephant or a rhino.
Lions kill and eat people in Kenya.
People get together with guns and go after the lions to kill them in revenge.
That's why most lions across Africa were decimated for several centuries.
By now, it is too late to save the lion in Africa.
Only enclosed lions - in national parks - will have a reasonable chance of survival.
You can be sentimental about lions, but it will not help.
I know the argument that it was man who invaded the lion's territory.
That is true, but it brought progress and civilisation to Africa and other continents.
Can you argue against this premise?
I don't think so.

You are essentially advocating the decimation of a higher mammalian species because 'people are better'... You're the technocrat Thump was talking about earlier although you are dressing it up slightly differently. You apparently have a disdain for the natural world because it doesn't fit in with your idea of progress and civilization. That's just sad.

The only people who annoy me more than fundamentalist religious people are the sorts who feel we can do whatever we want to the environment, guilt free because there will be no consequences. That short-sighted, backwards and asinine outlook simply astounds me.

Your point about bringing progress and civilization to Africa is a massive misnomer as well. Probably for another thread though.

Quote from: "karadan"The only people who annoy me more than fundamentalist religious people are the sorts who feel we can do whatever we want to the environment, guilt free because there will be no consequences. That short-sighted, backwards and asinine outlook simply astounds me.

I don't know if Fininho is actually welcoming the passing of the lion, or is just resigned to it.
But there has to be some money in maintaining large parks for tourism, if Africa doesn't do it someone else will.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "karadan"The only people who annoy me more than fundamentalist religious people are the sorts who feel we can do whatever we want to the environment, guilt free because there will be no consequences. That short-sighted, backwards and asinine outlook simply astounds me.

I don't know if Fininho is actually welcoming the passing of the lion, or is just resigned to it.
But there has to be some money in maintaining large parks for tourism, if Africa doesn't do it someone else will.

They're already doing it in plenty of places. The UK wildlife trust recently bought about 250 acres of rainforest in Borneo and have started up an eco-tourism base which they are training the local people to run and manage. They make money from tourists looking at Orang-utans and in doing so, help save and nurture an incredible species of ape. It is way better than logging, and is also sustainable.

I don't care whether the lion goes extinct or not.
It looks like it is a lost cause, but sentimental ecologists are also hypocrites.
They want to protect the wild for their own gain.
It is not for philanthropic reasons: it is COMMERCE with tourists' sentimentality; nothing else.
Species go extinct every day across nature, and that's that.
Lions are just nice for pictures!
Would you not love to see a pride of lions attack a buffalo or an elephant or a wildebeest and take pictures while they eat them alive?...
"Wow, Simon! Where did you take those fabulous pictures, man!"
"An expensive safari in South Africa. Then we went visit Mother Theresa's hospital in Calcutta."
"Wow!"

Quote from: "Fininho"I don't care whether the lion goes extinct or not.
It looks like it is a lost cause, but sentimental ecologists are also hypocrites.
They want to protect the wild for their own gain.
It is not for philanthropic reasons: it is COMMERCE with tourists' sentimentality; nothing else.

That's crap, did Dian Fossey die trying to make a buck? that's is just a little cynical.
No one pays me to put up a nesting box in the back yard.
People care about about animal survival, making them a valuable tourist resource is an important means of doing that.
If an opportunistic landowner does the same, well good luck to them.

Quote from: "Fininho"Lions are just nice for pictures!
Would you not love to see a pride of lions attack a buffalo or an elephant or a wildebeest and take pictures while they eat them alive?...
"Wow, Simon! Where did you take those fabulous pictures, man!"
"An expensive safari in South Africa. Then we went visit Mother Theresa's hospital in Calcutta."
"Wow!"

I can't say lions are my favourite animal, I wouldn't mind a picture of an elephant just being an elephant.
The ideal is to conserve eco systems, this includes small insects and large carnivores.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I don't know that I know that, but I don't think rational arguments should be abandoned.
Emotions are used as a powerful motivator for good or ill, if a koala is shown looking confused next to a felled tree it moves people.
It doesn't matter that koalas always look dopey and confused.

I wasn't advocating abandoning rational arguments; indeed, I advanced a couple myself.  I was pointing out the poor odds any argument must face, be it rational or an appeal to emotion, when it confronts the ultima ratio avarus

QuotePictures like this and passionate argument saved the Franklin River from being drowned.
Reason was used, ancient cave paintings and tourism, but I think people with enough to eat can choose to save such a place just for its beauty.  Hungry people may want more though.

Very true.  However, many species endangerments, particularly in Africa, aren't fueled by hunger, but by avarice.

I don't want to disagree outright, Pudding.
The crude facts are that Kenyans invaded the lions' territory to plant crops.
Lions reacted by eating some of them.
Result: lions lost.
It is an irreversible situation.
I've been very near to lions [in the Kruger Park], and they look awesome, but in a fight with humans they lose.
They have always lost.
They will be gone one day.
It is irreversible fact.
Do you really care about that?

Quote from: "Fininho"Do you really care about that?

Yes i care about that an enormous amount.

Quote from: "Fininho"They have always lost.

I'm pretty sure we were on the lion's regular menu (or at least the lion ancestor's) well before we were smart enough to make guns.

I think lions are beautiful creatures and it would be a shame for them to no longer be around for future generations to see; as with all creatures we should do our best not to drive them into extinction if we can find ways of cohabiting on the same planet.  Humans often act in a manner that makes us like a planet-wide virus that is run out of control....out of control viruses eventually kill all of their hosts and then die themselves.

All this doom and gloom is annoying. There is no species quite like the human race. We manipulate our environment to benefit us and by doing so can reach qualities of life that  are on a whole new level in comparison with other life forms. Whitney, your brought up the point that before we employed technology, bows and arrows, spears, etc that Lions would eat us for dinner, absolutely. So what did we do? We evolved to being using tools, the situation was reversed and we thrived because of this evolutionary path.  Biology has never met the sort of issues that humanity has to deal with but I think the process of evolution is still guiding everything we do, our technology is after all a result of evolution.  We're learning already that a flagrant disregard for the rest of the planet via sucking up all the resources, destroying thousands of species and whatever else you can think of will not bode well for humanity. It's why we seek new sources of energy to power our way of life. Whether that's abandoning fossil fuels or working on nuclear fusion( they're making headway now, yay!) I think it's simply an instinctual response and evolution working to keep the human machine going.  Humans have the remarkable ability to over ride their instincts to a degree and this is usually good however it works against us at times too, like an intense greed which results in this disregard for the environment or those who simply just hate the world and don't give a damn. These people tend to be called sociopaths which is something that doesn't thrive well in society and tends not to pass on to the next generation or is diminished each time.

Agree.
As for the lions in Kenya or in the whole of Africa, their days are numbered, regardless of the efforts of preservation, and all the rest.
Now, don't tell me to go cry in a corner for so little.

Quote from: "Fininho"Agree.
As for the lions in Kenya or in the whole of Africa, their days are numbered, regardless of the efforts of preservation, and all the rest.
Now, don't tell me to go cry in a corner for so little.

I regard anyone who views irreplaceable, unique species in such a blasé manner with more than a bit of pity.  I don't expect you to go "cry in a corner".  That would require caring.

But then tell me: the lion is doomed in Africa, for sure.
Have you cried for that?
Or you think it is nice to have pity on the lion?
One way or another, time goes on, and MANY other species will also disappear.
It would be nice to have at least one dinosaur living somewhere for tourists to see, but fate had them gone forever.
I don't think anybody cried for them.

Quote from: "Fininho"But then tell me: the lion is doomed in Africa, for sure.
Have you cried for that?
Or you think it is nice to have pity on the lion?
One way or another, time goes on, and MANY other species will also disappear.
It would be nice to have at least one dinosaur living somewhere for tourists to see, but fate had them gone forever.
I don't think anybody cried for them.

Why do you seem to have a fixation on crying?

Is there anything wrong with crying, do you think?

Quote from: "Fininho"Is there anything wrong with crying, do you think?

Within reason crying is OK, I think it's part of feeling, I don't envy insensitive people.
There is something wrong with apathy, I do think.

Correct, Pudding.
But as far as the lion is concerned, apathy is the "sentiment" to apply, since most humans in these hard days have other priorities rather than to worry with the wild.
Besides, I don't see any use for that beast, I really don't.
[Like we don't see any use for mosquitoes in Alaska.]

Quote from: "Fininho"But then tell me: the lion is doomed in Africa, for sure.
Have you cried for that?

No, I haven't.

QuoteOr you think it is nice to have pity on the lion?

No, I simply think we ought not seek out the extinction of species, especially when we have other ways of dealing with this apparently-pressing problem of lions taking over the Universe as we know it.

QuoteOne way or another, time goes on, and MANY other species will also disappear.
It would be nice to have at least one dinosaur living somewhere for tourists to see, but fate had them gone forever.
I don't think anybody cried for them.

Protip:  Humans hadn't evolved yet.

Quote from: "Fininho"Is there anything wrong with crying, do you think?

I do not think there is anything wrong with crying in itself. Why have you repeatedly brought up crying?

A tad off topic but I wonder what you guys think of this, if dinosaurs were never wiped out, would the human race still thrive or even emerge from evolution?

Quote from: "Ultima22689"A tad off topic but I wonder what you guys think of this, if dinosaurs were never wiped out, would the human race still thrive or even emerge from evolution?

Even a small change sixty million years ago would probably break the thread that led to humans.

I thought mammals were small until the dinosaurs were removed by god.
Only after they were removed mammals evolved to fill the vacated niches for large herbivores and carnivores.
But what do I know?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6 ... saurs.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6874-large-mammals-once-dined-on-dinosaurs.html)

QuoteWhen the dinosaurs ruled the world, the mammals hid in the shadows, daring to grow no bigger than shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night. Or so we thought.

Two stunning new fossils from China have overturned this preconception. Not only did large mammals live alongside their giant reptilian cousins, but some were big and bold enough to go dinosaur hunting.

Named Repenomamus giganticus and Repenomamus robustus, the sturdily built mammals lived in China about 130 million years ago, around 65 million years before we thought their kind inherited the Earth. At 1 metre long, R. giganticus was big enough to hunt small dinosaurs, and a newly discovered fossil of its smaller cousin, R. robustus, died with its belly full of young dinosaur.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"A tad off topic but I wonder what you guys think of this, if dinosaurs were never wiped out, would the human race still thrive or even emerge from evolution?

Even a small change sixty million years ago would probably break the thread that led to humans.

I thought mammals were small until the dinosaurs were removed by god.
Only after they were removed mammals evolved to fill the vacated niches for large herbivores and carnivores.
But what do I know?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6 ... saurs.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6874-large-mammals-once-dined-on-dinosaurs.html)

QuoteWhen the dinosaurs ruled the world, the mammals hid in the shadows, daring to grow no bigger than shrew-like insectivores that hunted at night. Or so we thought.

Two stunning new fossils from China have overturned this preconception. Not only did large mammals live alongside their giant reptilian cousins, but some were big and bold enough to go dinosaur hunting.

Named Repenomamus giganticus and Repenomamus robustus, the sturdily built mammals lived in China about 130 million years ago, around 65 million years before we thought their kind inherited the Earth. At 1 metre long, R. giganticus was big enough to hunt small dinosaurs, and a newly discovered fossil of its smaller cousin, R. robustus, died with its belly full of young dinosaur.

You clearly know nothing, this is what really happened.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maudnewton.com%2Fimages%2F20060801_creation_museum.jpg&hash=f4042b74363083af2c6697ceb1f518e454baf1a5)

Quote from: "Ultima22689"You clearly know nothing, this is what really happened.

What is happening there?
Are the elephants saying to the dinos "are no mate, this is the mammal ark, the dino ark is in the next valley".

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"You clearly know nothing, this is what really happened.

What is happening there?
Are the elephants saying to the dinos "are no mate, this is the mammal ark, the dino ark is in the next valley".

There are also, clearly, invisible aliens with an invisible UFO getting ready to take the dinosaurs out to explore the galaxy. You can see a lot of invisible shit going on behind the scenes there...  

Quote from: "Asmodean"You can see a lot of invisible shit going on behind the scenes there...  

Does invisible shit need to be behind the scenes, it's invisible.
If I was invisible I would be in the foreground.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Does invisible shit need to be behind the scenes, it's invisible.
If I was invisible I would be in the foreground.

Depends. Some invisible shit is see-through, and other aint.  :P

Actually, there is some invisible shit going on in the foreground, it's just invisible.  Having said that:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eatliver.com%2Fimg%2F2007%2F2530.jpg&hash=54f72f3d913f426409e767efb30afb8de19e7610)

:eek:

But now, seriously on the lion:
Noah was the first "lion conservationist", I was told at Sunday School, many years ago.
And I believed it.
His idea was to save two, to have four, and then 8.
It worked!

Wait, I thought you said "seriously".

Don't think lions can take inbreeding on a massive scale... Can they?  

Quote from: "Asmodean"Don't think lions can take inbreeding on a massive scale... Can they?  

Well, that requires evolution to be a danger, and any good fundy knows that evilution is teh lie.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Don't think lions can take inbreeding on a massive scale... Can they?  

Well, that requires evolution to be a danger, and any good fundy knows that evilution is teh lie.

But inbreeding hasn't done the fundies any harm.... has it?

None that they're aware of.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"None that they're aware of.

If you asked an actual human though...  :P

More-or-less my point.  Except I wasn't calling them subhuman.  Adolf.  

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"More-or-less my point.  Except I wasn't calling them subhuman.  Adolf.  :hmm:



 

Don't forget the bus-driver's cap!

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"More-or-less my point.  Except I wasn't calling them subhuman.  Adolf.  :hmm:
 

Unconventional I would think, I mean um,,, they usually go under a persons nose.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Unconventional I would think, I mean um,,, they usually go under a persons nose.

Would look like shit with a nose though... Unlike Michael Jackson who looked like shit without

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi51.tinypic.com%2F2a9trm1.jpg&hash=8edada8021fe65572035986b1793e0069a1a47e8)

It gives him an air of seriousness, a gravitas, if you will.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Unconventional I would think, I mean um,,, they usually go under a persons nose.

Would look like shit with a nose though... Unlike Michael Jackson who looked like shit without

There are some interesting noses out there, don't let Fininho  put you off.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fearthshinenature.com%2Fimages%2Ftapir.jpg&hash=e2604e3526f5c79a53ff09657605e58277fc6c42)  (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmagazine.naturspot.de%2Fpict%2Fproboscis-monkey.gif&hash=d5d3d77dfa6b5add08d1878e26343f9030b68cfb)

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fearthshinenature.com%2Fimages%2Ftapir.jpg&hash=e2604e3526f5c79a53ff09657605e58277fc6c42)  (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmagazine.naturspot.de%2Fpict%2Fproboscis-monkey.gif&hash=d5d3d77dfa6b5add08d1878e26343f9030b68cfb)

What has we here... A tapir and some sort of... Nose monkey, yes..?  :shake:

I saw this guy down at the shops, actually he was out the back leaning on a garbage bin, but he seems to carry the nose and tash look quite well.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkT32G.png&hash=d9a8bd4abc8c7b0d56ac825c4db2025622e35a91)

I got this picture as he was returning to work, it seems he's a Santa helper, they're starting early this year

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7LuAr.png&hash=c7ad5a719350cf555697bc1875def6d7cfc6fcf8)

:D

Quote from: "Asmodean"roflol

Could just alter the 'stache according to the mood. From tiny under the nose to Joseph Stalin to Ivan IV  

Ye, once you've got a nose all manner of possibilities open up.