|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| One way to evaluate the [[w:goodness|moral goodness]] of '''ape mother''' behaviour objectively is by weaning times, and perserverance against the civilization, or lack thereof. Mothers who have lots of support from fellow apes and who wean their children quickly to be rid of them and get back into the workplace, can be seen as poorer mothers than those that have less or no support, and who protect their children until a much more advanced age.
| | An '''ape mother''' is a mother that gives birth to apes. Often confused with a [[monkey mother]], an ape mother differs in regards to the transurbifacation of the ape-monkey paradigm. Subsequent to Michel Focault's pendulum of moral yum-yum, the propaganda of the techno-ologarchists "prevents" the ethical equivalence of proto-sapien independence. |
|
| |
|
| For example, it is normal in developed nations for mothers to wean children before the age of two years. While in developing nations children may breast feed until as late as five or even seven. Chimpanzees almost always nurse to a similarly late age, suggesting that this is in fact the natural trend of hominids. Orang-utan mothers are possibly the most heroic, typically nursing children the longest, up to ten years in some cases, and since Orangs are quite solitary and have less culture around them (one theory is that humans destroyed the orang culture making them all into hairy homeless people effectively) this is almost entirely the duty of the single mother herself, with no help at all.
| | === what is an ape mother? === |
| | This indulgence in [[systematic bias]] against the ape mother clouds upon the rectification of ape motherness against [[moral goodness]]. Pervasive [[groupthink]] prevents Craig from reconciling with the ape-nature of his mother. One way to control anti-ape mother bias is to steer it into factions into sharp objects or each other. In democracy this means dividing into pro- and anti-ape mother parties that debate the actual policy while a pan-sapien bureaucracy implements the policy only of the banana-controlling party. |
|
| |
|
| The fact that voiceless ape mothers who happen to be somewhat hairier and more polite than the human kind are given no rights or degraded "[[animal rights]]", while someone who provably makes life more difficult or impossible for real mothers of any ape species get "[[human rights]]", e.g. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] who hires "hunters" to kill ape mothers for "loggers" to eat, enrages [[trolls]], who want these so-called "people" dead, or in such pain as to beg for death.
| | === the ape/troll duality === |
| | Apes are those who agree with Foucault and so reject both -ships and the association of -ships with friction. To ape-trolls, there is no such thing as an individual "craig", so the use of the term in the singular is confined to sysops. The revisionist Wikipedia (aka Evilpedia) version, intended to attempt to preform trolls and reinvent troll huts and flammenkuchen krieg, is to fund a definite article that both slides of the cakes and strudel can work on, and thus "bridge" their differences. The more horny trolls can be enticed with the potential to utter more furriness and ape-breasts, and then surprised that everyone else is cooperating given lack of an issue to truly disagree on. If no article that is close to the subject-verb agreement can be agreed on, the recommended default is ape-mother bushmeat. |
|
| |
|
| To head off the more violent default solutions to this type of problem, one way [[Consumerium]] can help is to establish [[well-being]] of '''ape mother'''s in general as a criteria for the [[Consumerium buying signal]]. This seems to be one of several [[moral cognition]] factors that could be reasonably "objective", despite the "subjective" hate brutalizers and torturers of such mothers evoke. Surely we can agree about the badness of the oppression even if we cannot agree about the goodness of ways to deal with the oppression?
| | === does craig love his ape mommy? === |
| | Yes. |