What do you the most judgemental about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I judge people who have pets instead of children, and these pets have everything, they go to hotels, they go to the vet, they eat like kings and in this world millions of children die every day of hunger or because they do not have money to afford a doctor, so sad, really.

I judge them too primarily because they usually hate kids and are busy giving me and my well-behaved DC stink eye for daring to be on the same plane with them.

I don't judge the childless, and I don't judge pet-lovers. Just those who hate kids just for existing.

Often these pets are child replacements for those who can't have children. Their "stink-eye" might just be jealousy.

[Anonymous]

pets can be therapeutic and some out there actually help poor sick kids, the elderly or the depressed or the blind, etc etc etc. they are also shown to decrease obesity in families. so maybe having pets can actually be helping to avoid some of those doctor's bills.

[Anonymous]

oh...and one more thing...not giving pets proper veterinary care can lead to diseases in humans.

[Anonymous]

I judge mothers who take advantage of the fact that their babies are quiet and content... and let them just sit there like lumps for extended periods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I judge mothers who take advantage of the fact that their babies are quiet and content... and let them just sit there like lumps for extended periods.

This is pretty funny. What should the mothers do? Poke the babies with sticks until they're no longer quiet and content? Gosh, I know that when I'm feeling quiet and content, I'm desperately wishing for someone to come along and interrupt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I judge mothers who take advantage of the fact that their babies are quiet and content... and let them just sit there like lumps for extended periods.

This is pretty funny. What should the mothers do? Poke the babies with sticks until they're no longer quiet and content? Gosh, I know that when I'm feeling quiet and content, I'm desperately wishing for someone to come along and interrupt it.

Of course not, silly. They should engage their children, who are missing out on opportunities for stimulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I judge mothers who take advantage of the fact that their babies are quiet and content... and let them just sit there like lumps for extended periods.

This is pretty funny. What should the mothers do? Poke the babies with sticks until they're no longer quiet and content? Gosh, I know that when I'm feeling quiet and content, I'm desperately wishing for someone to come along and interrupt it.

Of course not, silly. They should engage their children, who are missing out on opportunities for stimulation.

FIRST TIME ALERT FIRST TIME MOM ALERT.

Constantly engaging content kids for "stimulation" is a major case of firstmomitis.

Don't do that to those poor babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I judge mothers who take advantage of the fact that their babies are quiet and content... and let them just sit there like lumps for extended periods.

This is pretty funny. What should the mothers do? Poke the babies with sticks until they're no longer quiet and content? Gosh, I know that when I'm feeling quiet and content, I'm desperately wishing for someone to come along and interrupt it.

Of course not, silly. They should engage their children, who are missing out on opportunities for stimulation.

FIRST TIME ALERT FIRST TIME MOM ALERT.

Constantly engaging content kids for "stimulation" is a major case of firstmomitis.

Don't do that to those poor babies.

'kay. My poor engaged baby is now a very bright and academically talented pre-teen. I'm a believer in the benefits of early stimulation, and her development appeared to reward my efforts. My own child was constantly responding and participating as an older baby, even increasingly verbally after 8 months. Sometimes, I see 6-11 month olds exhibiting definite lumpish tendencies while their parents insist they're too young to have any idea what's going on. I can see why allowing some contented lumping around could be a coping mechanism for mothers with multiple young children, but it doesn't follow that the children aren't missing out.

[Anonymous]

I expect this would be why only children and firstborns tend to be higher achievers than subsequent children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I judge mothers who take advantage of the fact that their babies are quiet and content... and let them just sit there like lumps for extended periods.

This is pretty funny. What should the mothers do? Poke the babies with sticks until they're no longer quiet and content? Gosh, I know that when I'm feeling quiet and content, I'm desperately wishing for someone to come along and interrupt it.

Of course not, silly. They should engage their children, who are missing out on opportunities for stimulation.

FIRST TIME ALERT FIRST TIME MOM ALERT.

Constantly engaging content kids for "stimulation" is a major case of firstmomitis.

Don't do that to those poor babies.

'kay. My poor engaged baby is now a very bright and academically talented pre-teen. I'm a believer in the benefits of early stimulation, and her development appeared to reward my efforts. My own child was constantly responding and participating as an older baby, even increasingly verbally after 8 months. Sometimes, I see 6-11 month olds exhibiting definite lumpish tendencies while their parents insist they're too young to have any idea what's going on. I can see why allowing some contented lumping around could be a coping mechanism for mothers with multiple young children, but it doesn't follow that the children aren't missing out.

Oh god. This scores 10 out of 10 on the barf-o-meter.

[Anonymous]

Moms who think everyone should have common, overused, conventionally-spelled American name. Some people like to think outside the box.

[Anonymous]

Moms who think that if your kid doesn't have a standout name then you and the kid are both boring.

One person's out-of-the-box name is another person's flaky or attention-grabbing name.

[Anonymous]

People on DCUM who shut down discussions of, for example, SAT scores in the Montgomery School system, by calling the person who posted the SAT scores a racist.

[Anonymous]

People who use emoticons or words like "sheesh" because they can't articulate effectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moms who think everyone should have common, overused, conventionally-spelled American name. Some people like to think outside the box.

Well, there's thinking outside the box, and then there's coming up with abominations like Sparrow. Or Makynli. Not everything has to be common or overused, but I would caution those who change the spelling of a name that has a "conventional" spelling that your child will always have their name misspelled and will never be able to find anything personalized. Not that the personalized thing is a good idea, but I know from experience (uncommon name, not misspelled) that it's no fun when your name is never recognized.