The 'royal' family and being notified every time they reproduce. Ignorant exotic pet haters. 'Alternative' medicine and pseudo-science. 'Feel good' romanticism. The royal family. Big Cat Rescue. People who avoid 'negativity' because it makes them feel bad. The royal family. Joel Olesteen. The Humane Society of the United States. Celebrity worship. The royal family.
People who sniffle instead of blowing their noses.
I have had serious sinus problems all my life, even though I had my tonsils and adenoids removed when I was three years old. That was in 1951.
It is not always feasible to blow my nose, for various reasons. One reason maybe that perhaps my nose is already very sore from blowing too much.
There are other times when my nose just doesn't stop running, no matter how much I blow and wipe. Once I was forced by the company I worked for to take Rx that would dry up my sinuses. Any rx can make a symptom worse, or perhaps cause other problems, even death.
I would like to ask you to please have mercy and forgive those of us who may have to sniff. I hope you can understand? If you are Catholic, please offer it up, if you would be so kind.
I forget who said, "If we could read the secret story of each man's life, we would find in it enough sorrow, suffering and sadness to disarm all criticism."
That's all well and good, but it still doesn't make sniffling any less annoying. There are just certain things that annoy people, and this is what annoys me, along with people who spit on sidewalks.
Huntgoddess I had sinus from the age of 3 until when 45 the Spirit healed me instantly and I have never had it since. That is the Great Creative Spirit of the Universe and certainly NOT any Catholic gods that were invented for power and control You might consider that as the Spirit heals its own without religion and those who are searching for truth. If you want to know more just ask or read some of my web sites.
It would also be considerate to offer the sniffer a clean tissue? If you have one.
Sometimes homeless people are sniffing for the simple reason they have no access to a clean tissue. They might really appreciate a fellow human who hands them a nice, clean tissue for this purpose.
People who stifle knowledge and glorify ignorance! Hint hint: My facts of life book for teens, "Wage Peace Between the Sexes".
Now, I will answer this under my regular account. People who commit violent and criminal acts, and get away with it. Victim-blaming. Authorities who sweep these criminal acts under the rug, telling the victim to "forgive and forget", and threatening them with eternal hell if they express their justifiable rage.
This ties in with stifling knowledge and glorifying ignorance. I'm referring to the recent scandal with the Dugar family. People like that tend to stifle knowledge and glorify ignorance, which is how they get away with it.
Being accused of doing something wrong when i am innocent. I hate being accused falsely and yet with proof. My hubby always accused me wrongly and never apologized
Saying "pricey," instead of, "expensive."
That really bugs me. There's already a word for it, and the "new word" adds nothing to the meaning.
Looking at your image and taking the beginning of your question I would have to have a fuse. I checked and I cannot find any, sorry.
What a blessing - a hub that could have been designed for people like me i.e. over 65! I love a rant. Let's start with baristas. How long am I supposed to queue patiently to get a cup of coffee?!!
A Conspiracy of liars Gov Scott of Florida and Dept of AG http://buck3647.hubpages.com/hub/Republ … cy-exposed
People who say "I'll try anything once." This is a mindless and ill thought out statement, as I am confident you can always find something that each individual would not be willing to do under any circumstances. Keep in mind that "anything" really does mean "anything", which is an awful lot of things, if you think about it.
Oh, there are sooo many, but one of my pet peeves is people who give incorrect information and act like they know it is correct or say something they know to not quite be true and then change their story when you confront them about it.
For example, a Post Office supervisor told me I could call her on her private line, and even wrote the number down. I later realized that she gave me the general phone number, and when I confronted her about it, she said that nobody there has private lines!
Verizon used to offer a "for life" plan, but after you signed up for it, someone later would tell you that "for life" actually means two years!
People who give you directions when they have absolutely no idea about how you can get where you need to go.
Company workers who tell you that a certain person is the one to talk to about an issue, but when you contact that person, they send you to someone else. The next person does the same thing, etc., etc.
These types of behaviors create a lot of unnecessary time consuming work for people, all of which could be avoided if they simply said "I'm sorry, I don't know" or did not embellish their statements with half truths.
I hate dirty and unhygienic people also those who don't try to move forward and better themselves
Attitudes of superiority and elitism. I never know whether to laugh or pity these bloated egos.
People who are two-faced: cruel one minute, kind the next
People who blindly follow authority and never question what they are told. "sheeple" types that do this and then proceed to tell others who think critically that they are nuts, immoral, stupid, or conspiracy theorists etc.
Exactly, in addition to your eloquent statement, ChristinS, one is even ostracized, even demonized for thinking and questioning the majority consensus. I also detest those who feel that the status quo is preordained, even predestined. Yes, there are those who feel that way about the majority societal construct.
Completely agree...have to add: People who TALK one way (i.e., religion, politics, education), and ACT another. The word for that is HYPOCRISY!
People who endanger my life and my passenger's lives by reckless, aggressive driving, using their cell phone while driving, or driving while drunk.
Such people ought to have their licenses revoked period!
Don't get in the car with those drivers.
I have completely stopped taking rides from anyone, even my kids (mostly). If the city bus doesn't go there, I don't either.
Thanks for this. It's a very important issue.
Cruelty to animals always makes me furious. but bad driving comes a very close second!
Why does this annoy you? Circumcision for males significantly reduces their risk of getting STDs, for example. It is more hygienic.
70% or more of the world is not circumcised. All the theories about cleanliness, STDs and infections have long since been disproven. There is no medical reason to remove thousands of nerve endings and a very important piece of skin, with 16 functions, at birth.
+1 I also have to add that I believe the boy/man should be in control of his own body. I left my sons in tact. If and when they decide they don't want to be, then it is their decision. Doing this to infants gives them no say in the treatment of their own bodies.
So will you also wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they want inoculations or not? Also, getting circumcised later in life is not so pleasant an idea and your sons will question why you didn't get it over with when you should have.
70% of the world isn't circumcised. The USA is the only country that routinely circumcises at birth for non-religious reasons.
There is no good reason to remove a functioning prepuce from a male or female infant, except in the case of severe medical issues (very rare).
My oldest son is well into his teens and has actually thanked me for not altering his body and allowing him to have that choice. Giving medications is a different subject entirely and one I'm not going to hijack this thread over. There is no medically necessary reason to circumcise a male and much of the world is recognizing that and moving away from it. Both of my sons are perfectly healthy and well loved, respected and cared for thank you very much.
How have these theories been disproven? There is plenty of proof out there that being circumcised is healthier.
The number one cause of complications in an intact child is retraction. Retraction rips the foreskin just liked ripping off a nail off a nail bed.
If intact, don't retract. Only clean, what is seen.
Circumcision does not prevent AIDS or STDs. That's what condoms are for with about a 97% higher success rate.
No one ever said circumcision prevents AIDS or STDs, but it does lessen the risk. But I guess the opinion of the CDC is not good enough for you: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new … th-reasons
The actual study found that the risk of HIV transmission in circumcised men dropped from 2.49% to 1.18%. Yes, that’s a 60% drop, but not in the way most people would immediately visualise 60%. Also, this was a non-Western study. Read this article for more information.
The clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa were done by the CDC, not by the local medical authorities. So this was a Western study.
A Western study in a non-Western country. Did you read the article?
A study done by Westerners in a non-Western country is still a Western study. I will go out on a limb and assume that the study was done in sub-Saharan Africa is because of the high levels of AIDS and other STDs due to unprotected sex. This allowed the doctors to compare the number of those who get AIDS and whether or not they were circumcised.
WTG, Wry Lit. I'm rally glad you brought this up.
Back in the day, they used to make you sign the papers while you were still in labor. That's what happened to my first two sons.
But I never liked the idea of it, and it seemed very traumatic. Then, I read some of the anti-circumcision literature. It loved it, and was very glad they were researching and studying the topic.
So, my two youngest sons are totally "natural." They are both adults now. I haven't heard any complaints from anyone, so I'm assuming all is well. Not that I ask them or anything. LOL
The reasons for global warming are not all clear. I haven't heard of anyone outright denying it, just the reasons for it.
So, your pet peeve is when others disagree with you? Wow, you must be peeved a lot. LOL
I don't care if someone chooses to proselytize, as long as they don't proselytize folks who don't want to listen. It's a free country, even for people of faith.
The other day, there were some Mormons on the corner. I said thanks for doing that to them, even though I have another religious tradition of my own that I practice and believe.
I said thanks because there are so few people who have any faith at all nowadays.
When people do lie to me in conversation, noticing that I am aware and they still go on shamelessly...
Religions and the brainwashing of children into them. They serve only the establishment and hide the Spirit of the Universe, the one and only true God. They are regimented forms of discipline that are collectively destroying the world.
So believing in the "Spirit of the Universe" is different???
One doesn't decide to believe in the real God, you just do when it calls you. You hear it call and you respond. It is not something that everyone experiences, only those who are connected and that link or channel does not come via religions which have many gods, icons, trinities and so forth. All they do is hide the truth and imprison people in make-believe and myths and they brainwash people to force acceptance.
I also hate being called a liar, more so when I've not lied.
When co-workers disrespect me. This gets my blood boiling.
People who have large/very large families, not caring about the ramifications of their actions upon their children's emotional, psychological, and/or socioeconomic well-being and/or futures. That puts me in a HUNNIC rage!
People who complain about being poor and EXPECT their wealthier relatives to SUPPORT them. Uh uh..........NO.....
Cruelty to animals and children! AND I hate it when people post horrible photos on FaceBook of animals being abused. That photo will stick in my head the rest of the day!
Poverty and poor people who are comfortable with it thinking its righteousness to be poor and its the will of God or having the mentality that one can only go to heaven safely if he is poor. It makes me go crazy.
God never invented money, man did. Consequently one is happier and closer to the real God where one is poor. Money only brings hardship, hate, jealousy, and corruption. There is no such place as heaven, that is the BS that gives religions power. I have memory of my reincarnation and can assure you that these places are only religious window dressing, Heaven and hell form the perfect trap and the imprisonment that most find themselves in when they try to walk away from religion.
Have you actually asked poor people whether they are happy and feel closer to the "real" God? I think you'll find they are frustrated, angry, and hopeless and tend to ask God why they are so poor instead of feeling closer to him. You have fallen into believing the cliche that poverty brings happiness, which is ridiculous.
Fran, I couldn't have said it better myself. Really now........
I just do not understand such a "premise". Poverty is a socioeconomic negativity. It is even socioeconomic hell. Poverty means socioeconomic lack, struggle, and want. Poor and impoverished people are living on the socioeconomic edge. They are in want and struggling from day to day to break even. Poverty is not noble at all. Oh boy INDEED.........
Statements that are illogical and based upon stereotypical hyperbole REALLY SETS me off.
GM and Fran - You are basing your premise on man made money.and inventions because you do not know of the wonderful wealth in spiritual knowledge. The real God looks after its own and physical want as you describe does not come into it. We get healed, have great peace, happiness and good relationships. In fact money becomes a handicap as it interferes with the dependence on the Spirit and dedication to such. To me money, just like make-believe and other things of man's inventions are dirty and they have clouded the minds of those who fail to see through the fog. They have delivered the darkness over the world and the problems we are now living through. Wealth is created from the environment which is destroyed by the greed that takes everything and cares nothing about the lives of other creatures or even fellow humans. Where is the pleasure in that. Who needs a bigger house, a faster car, a grander presence and then nothing? Pride is the target of fools and the real struggles are in those who try to outdo others and build fortunes they can never even spend or use.
This is not about becoming super-rich and owning a bigger house or faster car, it is about not living in abject poverty. No matter how spiritual a person may be, it will not stop them from starving to death or not getting proper health care if they don't have the money to pay for it. You must live in the real world where the only way to keep from dying in poverty is to have money, no matter how "evil" it may be. The "Great Spirit" will not fill your tummy with food. Do you live off of your belief in some Spirit, or do you work and make money in order to have a decent place to live, to have enough food to eat, and to live in comfort? I suspect that if you lived in poverty you would not have the time, energy or motivation to comment on how great poverty is on the internet, which I suppose is another "dirty" man-made invention in your eyes.
Wow, such anger ! I do live in the real world and I see how dirty and corrupt it is. The Spirit provides adequately for myself and my family, thank you. We are never hungry, homeless, or in need. Its the same with anyone who is spiritual but most have no idea what this means or what I am talking about because they have their gods, and money is one of them. Yes, I do live off my belief in the Spirit and my time is spent working for it. There are many living in poverty because of religion, and that is a man-made invention. Some people who are too poor to feed their kids still tythe to their religion. The RCC for instance is the richest organisation in the world and it still takes money from the poor. It also teaches breeding to excess and is one of the causes of over-population and the poverty those with huge families endure. The Muslim branch of it does the same. Yes, I mentioned branch because it was set up by the Vatican after Constantine established the RCC in 325 AD and built that institution. He also put in place the ways it follows, which is definitely against the Spirit.
Pessimists. People that only see the down side of everything.
Nudge me, push me or bump me but don't step on my shoe. I quit club dancing some years ago because of the crowded atmosphere. If I weren't extra careful, as people walked to and fro, one of my shoes may get stepped on. That would really bug me. Especially, with having on new or shined shoes. Enough said...
I will be very careful not to step on your blue suede shoes.
Thank you very much Sherry. You could walk near me, no problemo. I would be very careful not to step on yours as well :-).
Quite a few things I can mention:
- Ignorant of new ideas or facts in fear of straying away from preconceptions or "precious" ideology.
- The ignorance towards abuse and mistreatment towards men.
- The coddling women/children, which in turn enforces the narrative that women/children are vulnerable and incapable.
- Animal cruelty.
- Disrespect/ignorance towards motorcyclists on the roads.
The utter marginalization of childfree and 1-child families, indicating that such families aren't "true,authentic" families.
Saying that only children are spoiled and selfish. Totally bullhockey, there are those w/siblings who are spoiled and selfish beyond belief. Only children are some of the most generous, open, and giving people around. Also saying that only children are dependent and maladjusted. Uttering such makes me go into a Hunnic rage that would make Attila turn ashen!!!
That is so true. I only had one child, and even my OBGYN began lecturing that I should "get going" if I wanted to have more children (I didn't) when I was in my early 30's. It's not an agrarian society anymore, we don't need large families unless we want them. I have/had a lot of health issues, and though I treasure my son, didn't want to go through another painful pregnancy.
Plus we were able to give him the best, and spend a lot of time with him, as the rest of our family was also small. Just because families are big, doesn't mean they are happy. My son says he learned everything he learned from his Father and I, and never needed to go to school. Back then, it was unheard of to home school your children, though I like the idea. He's 27 and isn't a slave to college bills either, since we could afford to pay for it.
Large/very large families are so useless and totally unnecessary in a postmodern, computerized 21st century society and culture. Such children suffer because they are more children than their parents can reasonably and logically afford to take care off. With all the network of people, communities, and connections, it is totally unnecessary to have more than 1 child.
I believe that having 1 child is best. Only children are free and unencumbered to be themselves and explore their environments. They are not saddled with siblings who oftentimes are interfering, even disruptive. They also do not have to experience sibling competition nor parental favoritism. They do not have be involved in sibling one-upmanship and gamesmanship. They also have the most beautiful relationship with their parents. They are also mature beyond belief.
I feel sorry for children in large/very large families. They live on top of each other. They have no privacy and live out in the open. They have very poor parental interaction. It is sad when your primarily interact with your siblings and not your parents. It must be such a hellish life. I am so glad that I am an only child. My parents were readily and easily accessible. I learned from them. Teachings from parents are far more valuable than that of a sibling as siblings are children and not as developed as adults. It is TIME to put the large/very large family to rest. Such families are happily VERY FEW and VERY FAR between.
I don't understand why you are so obsessed with how many children other people have. Some people can afford to take care of a large family, and they enjoy being part of one. Not all children in large families are neglected.
Having siblings helps people learn to relate to other people and to cooperate in a group. Sure there are dysfunctional large families, but the same can be said of small families. Plenty of only children are neglected by their parents who are busy with other concerns, then who do they have? Siblings can be a wonderful support system.
I'm sorry, but I have seen you mention this a number of times. If you chose to have only one child, that's fine, but I don't know why you should judge others so harshly if they choose to have more.
Children from large/very large families are on the average socioeconomically impoverished or very near to it. There is very little money in large/very large families for even the necessities. Children in large/very large families oftentimes have to do without, even the necessities. They also have poor nutrition because nutritious foods and proteins are out of their budgetary reach. They have poor medical and health care. If it weren't for schools, such children WOULDN'T receive nutritious meals nor quality medical care. They wear clothing that are cast off through charitable and other donations. I have donated countless clothes as a child and teen to a branch of cousins who were from large families. Oh yes, most of large/very large families receive some type of aid and/or assistance through affluent relatives, religious organizations, charities, and the government.
Children from large/very large families raise themselves and each other. I have heard my classmates who are from large/very large families stated this many times. They also have to work from childhood to supplement family income. They also had poor parent-child relationships because parents are unavailable. I have seen and studied large/very large families and I won't wish such on the devil. Children from large/very large families lead hard, tough, tenuous lives of struggle. They are also parentified children, raising and parenting siblings thus missing out on their formative childhood and adolescent years. Yes, I am totally against large/very large families because of its detrimental effects on the children. I staunchly believe that people should have from 1-4 children so children can have great parent-child interaction and all the opportunities possible.
I have read and studied extensively the large/very large family system. My parents came from very large families and they related to me what difficult times they had. My aunt cried bitterly of how hard her life was, being the mother to younger siblings while she was still a child. Such families are perilous to children emotionally, mentally, psychologically, and socioeconomically. Children in small families are seldom neglected; however, it IS the children in large/very large families who ARE neglected on a consistent basis.
I have seen firsthand what large/very large families DO to children and it ISN'T pretty at all. To reiterate, large/very large families were fine for more agrarian times but NOT in this postmodern, computerized world. There are myriad social network and connections for children and people to connect to and interact with. Besides based upon mathematical, inductive, and deductive logic, no parent can effectively raise a large/very large number of children by themselves. The oldest/older children are oftentimes assigned, even forced to parent the younger siblings which isn't fair for them as they are themselves children entitled to a childhood.
P.S. Sherry, all of us have subjects and areas that we are OBSESSED with. For some it can be religion, politics, LBGT issues, and even plant life. For me, it is providing a comfortable quality of life for children so they do not have to endure the emotional, mental, psychological, economic, and/or even psychic perils of poverty. I also believe that each child should receive individualized parental attention and be cast aside, discarded, or otherwise waysided. That is why I believe in small(1-2 children per family) and medium-sized families(3-4 children per family). Even though I am childfree, I consider all children my children in one way or another. I do not want any child to suffer or do without, especially when parents know better! It was nice discussing this with you, Sherry. Have a Beautiful Blessed Night!
Personally, I am very thankful that I grew up with siblings and have them in my life. I feel sorry for the people of China who are mandated to have only one child. Every child bears the burden of the hopes and dreams of their family being focused on them. The family consists of only the parents, grandparents and great grandparents. Not only are there no siblings, there are no aunts, uncles or cousins. That is not the kind of society I want to be part of.
The oldest child of any size family carries a lot of the burdens of the parent's hopes and dreams. I am an oldest, with one brother, who stuck me with all the responsibility when anyone was sick or died or had any kind of problem. My husband was the oldest too, and faced similar issues. He was born of a Mom who was 1 of 9 children, and she and the sisters all carried the same grudges and arguments they had as kids all their lives into the next generation, and eventually, the whole family ignored each other. The oldest of each group of 2 or 3 had to Mother the younger ones, the Mom had to grow vegetables to feed them, as there was no birth control and the couple couldn't really afford to have all those children. The boys slept under the kitchen table, and interestingly, all got out of the state as soon as they were 18. The girls all stayed living in the same town all their lives, carrying on the same hates and grudges. There are only 2 of the sisters alive now, and they still won't speak to each other. It's really sad.
I do understand the point that an only child does suffer by having less people to love, or sets of hands to help when times get hard. But normally they have parents who helped them find what their interests were, and steered them towards people they would be compatible with, so they wouldn't be lonely..
Jean,, exactly. People just love to "sing" the "praises" of siblings. However, those are the SAME people behind closed doors who commiserate to anyone who will listen either willingly or more so unwillingly. I heard my aunt cry over the phone as to how she had to raise younger siblings while still a child. I really do not care what people say about only children. I would rather be an only child ANY DAY than the oldest in a large/very large family. A slave or a forced laborer have a far better life than the oldest child in a large/very large family.
Also, only children DON'T have less people to love. They have many people to love-parents, cousins, friends. In fact, friends are family to only children. They are better companions than siblings who hate each other and are not in contact with each other. There are siblings who resent, even hate each other. Jealousy is rife in the sibling relationship. There is also scapegoating in multichild, particularly large/very large families. There are siblings who play favorite with some siblings and ignore others. All this hoopla about siblings is just plain rhetoric nothing more nothing less. Being only children is a GOOD thing; in fact, it's ALL GOOD. Siblingship is basically unequal and unfair to the oldest/older children and even middle children while it is bliss to the youngest/younger children.
Oh, good Lord! I don't know whether to write a Hub, write a post here, or what! I don't even know if you people are just trying to get people going or what....
I don't know what all the blanket generalizations are about. It depends on the individuals involved, spacing, and any number of other things. I think only children are only at a disadvantage with regard to their taking the brunt (good or bad) or whatever their parents are toward them. Also, no matter who tries to spin even the best situation otherwise, only children and first-born children (at least when there's good spacing) often don't have a broader "perspective" on what parents do/say. With four/five years between me and my siblings I got to see how my parents were (particularly with my sister) and judge them on it.
Keep in mind that parents often tell older kids who get baby brothers/sisters how lucky they are not to be "the baby" because bigger kids get to do things babies and little kids don't. First borns can place a lot of importance on being older/bigger. I think the youngest child often only app0ears to "have it better" . Maybe they have more stuff because maybe parents have more money by the time they're born. Maybe they feel freer to ask for stuff because they know if they don't speak up for themselves none of the older siblings is likely to. Or else, I think a lot of youngest kids can be kind of angry at having "everyone" think of them as "the little one".
I do think that only's and first-borns are often "bestowed" with an automatic sense of "wonderfulness" (that can go along with their being happy enough to try to please parents). That, though, can sometimes make a person just kind of see himself as "all wonderful" without ever judging himself m ore objectively, and by "outside-world standards".
It just depends on the individuals and individual circumstances. My mother (a younger of two older sisters and a twin brother) used to say she didn't want "older kids watching younger ones" because she said, "I don'[t like what older kids do when it comes to younger ones".
I'm a middle kid. My parents told me how "wonderful" I was, but I didn't believe them because I had the benefit of sizing them up within the context of the siblings. Then, too, they were really good at explaining their "issues" as parents, so they had a certain amount of credibility (just not automatic, blind, faith that I was as "wonderful" as they said I was). My siblings and I each had our own "outside life" that was our own. I suppose if parents don't do a good enough job of helping kids understand the dynamics of the individual family then kids are left to come up with their own misguided conclusions about what's better when it comes to siblings and birth order.
Middle children are also misunderstood, even demonized. They are never considered individuals in their own right. They are either appendages of older and/or younger siblings. Middle children exist in a birth order Greylands, a sort of purgatory. It also depends upon the size of the family. In medium and medium large families(3-5 kids per family), middle children are seen as somewhat there and aren't overlooked as much. However, in large/very large families(6 and more kids per family) oh boy, middle children fade into the background, get lost in the shuffle, and even fall through the family cracks. They are considered the personae non gratae of their families. Middle children have quite a perilous position in the family.
.....and yet I seem to have managed. Again, depends on the people, family, circumstances, etc. I'd say that it depends on who is doing the "considering"/ At my age and with both parents dead, the only "considering" I consider is my own. I'm fairly sure my siblings only consider their own about themselves as well. That's the "beauty" of good spacing - all the time and attention a kid needs with their parents with the benefits/perspectives of also having siblings. I don't disagree that there's a difference between 3 well spaced kids and 10 poorly spaced ones, but I still think it can be more about how tuned in/skilled the parents are than who happens to be in the middle. Oh well... enough re-hashing of that subject for me....
Edit: Oops. I signed into the account I'm trying to transition to for a certain type of Hub. It's still me, and I'm not doing anything "funny".)
In many ways this subject boils down to simple economics. It costs $300,000 to raise a child from birth through age 18. Thus most people can barely afford to pay for one child, let alone many. Yet, people continue to have them.
This is OK for those who have the financial wherewithall to do so, but these days the average person does not. Each child is a step towards poverty that can ruin the lives of everybody in the family and destroy any chance for a happy future for the children. This, by the way, is even if everything goes well, but what if there are problems such as serious illnesses or disabling accidents?
I think people are totally unrealistic when it comes to having children. They think love will see them through, but love does not pay the bills and will not protect a child or provide for his future. It also does not give people the skills they need to raise children.
I taught school for 26 years and can tell you that the quality of parenting I saw during that time was appalling. Today we live in a highly dysfunctional society, and one of the reasons is children whose parents did not have the money or time to raise them properly.
The bottom line is this: If you cannot afford to have children, don't have them! If you want to have them, anyhow, understand the ramifications of doing so.
"it is totally unnecessary to have more than 1 child"
If everyone took your view, or even most people, you would end up with a quickly ageing population, too few young people, and reduced economic productivity. A shrinking labour force puts a huge strain on the economy, as China is finding out.
When innovation in technology and industry is subdued by established influential organisations. i.e banning Uber in some countries to protect taxi industry. or even worse, lobbying against high speed rail links by airlines! Boooo
Oops. I got all wrapped up in the above "mini-discussion" about kids/siblings etc. As far as the enraged thing goes, there isn't one thing. Maybe I don't get enraged. No, I get enraged if I let some stuff out of "mental files" where I "store" the stuff that enrages me (which is stuff about my kids or other family members being hurt). Other than that, I see so much stuff as "the small stuff" in life - not worth getting enraged over. I see "enraged" as lacking in self-control and therefore not worthy of much respect. Righteous/reasonable/reasoned anger - yes. But "enraged", no (at least under most circumstances).
Whenever the Statistics page reports "Includes data from 2 days ago and earlier".
That's just a frequent annoyance. One thing that does tick me off is people throwing their cigarette butts on the ground.
"Yes, but....." people! They whine and whine about their problems, but no matter what help is offered or suggested, "yes, but that wouldn't work/help, because....". They actually LOVE their problems, and just want someone to listen to them endlessly whine about them!
Grubby little short guys who always seem to want to ride three steps down on an upward escalator, just so they can check out some poor, unsuspecting girl's butt!
Wire Hangers. In my Mommy Dearest voice "NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!" JK. injustice of any kind.
one thing makes me mad is when you're shouting at me even im infront of you.
One thing that gets me mad is when people are inconsiderate in a deliberate way. Like when you are walking through a door behind someone. Sometimes, they know that you are behind them but they allow the door to slam right in your face.
Totally agree. That is nasty.
I always look behind me, to check to make sure I"m not slamming the door in their face. If there is someone, I wait a second or so for that person to also get through.
I think it makes them feel a little better about their day. I know it does the same for me, as well.
I mean, just think. Maybe they had a horrible experience that day. Just by holding the door for a few nanoseconds, their entire outlook would be improved.
Ok, sure, I know I'm not responsible for their outlook, etc., etc. . . .
But, where's the harm? It could make a big difference for good in the world.
BTW, I am well aware that the use of "their" in the singular is quite ungrammatical.
In order to be correct, I should have written, "his or her," in each instance of "their."
I just wanted to write quickly, and in a more familiar way. Sometimes "his or her," can sort of mess up the rhythm of the sentence. I hope I never write that way in a Hub?
Pants sagging. Why in the world do people think we want to see their streaked up underwear? I wish I could tell them all to pull their damn pants up, but instead I do my best just not to see it. For some reason it bothers me more when it is a lesbian doing it. My neighbor across the street is a masculine lesbian and she sags her pants below her butt. Drives me insane!
You are NOT alone on that one. It is a big trend right now among all the teens in this area to go around like that. I'm all for personal expression and everything, but when I was attending college classes and saw people running around like this it took all I had in me not to pull their pants up and wrap their belts around their throat and pull. LOL yes, that's harsh, but your damn underwear touching everything is just gross. I used ot hate it too when girls went around with thong underwear sticking out of the top of their jeans - ugh. I'm not a prude by any means, but hygiene and respect for others people!
I totally feel your pain. It comes to us by way of prison: please use your imagination. Vile and disgusting. I'm afraid it will only get worse. God help this nation.
Oh I am soooo in the mood to vent today!
As many others have said: Child and animal abuse.
The anti-vaccination movement.
Climate change denial.
People who shame breastfeeding in public.
Piercing a baby's ears, especially at a mall where a barely trained teenager uses a gun.
The assertion that being gay is a choice and that they don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.
The belief that smacking a child is the only way to effectively discipline them.
People who insist that atheists are immoral.
Oh I forgot one:
Smoking in busy public places, especially bus shelters or near playgrounds.
Got to add another! People who justify, minimize, or support abusers/rapists/molesters. I can't wrap my head around the idiocy of the people who use the bible to support people who commit crimes.
by Peeples4 years ago
Ok so I drive a Ford freestar minivan. When driving, no matter the speed it feels like a tire will fall off. Very severe feeling when driving slow but still a horrible wobble feeling when driving fast. When driving slow...
by RKHenry7 years ago
What is it about this word that gets everyones attention? If you want a successful forum post- just name God the founding father of it. Why is that? Why does god get all the attention? It seems...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.