Deaf "culture"

[Shi Huangdi]

"And people born deaf can't hear."

Right, but since nobody can fly, you can fit in perfectly well with society perfectly without being able to fly. The same isn't true about hearing.

I can't believe people are seriously making the argument that it is not a disadvantage to be unable to hear. Next to sight it is the most important sense. Just think of all the things you couldn't do in your daily life if you couldn't hear.

[Frodo]

No one should be forced to have the implant against their will, even if they are a child. It's not as if the child would be refusing a life-saving procedure. Deaf people can succeed quite well in the world, although they don't get to experience it in as many dimensions as non-deaf people.

If the child actually wants the implant, then the parents have no right to insist otherwise. Again, it's not as if the child is undergoing some form of self-mutilation; it's just the opposite. The "deaf culture" argument may have some value, but not when contrasted with the "non-deaf culture" of sounds, music, the spoken word, and all those things.

Here's a question: do we know of anyone who, having once had the ability to hear and then losing it, would refuse this procedure?

[General Ludd]

ranskaldan, do you really not understand what I'm saying, or are you purposely misinterpreting it?



Not only do you just not get my points or metaphors, I am not, nor have I ever been, arguing about the kid. Aside from my initial post on the first page, I have never even mentioned him. I thought I made it pretty clear what my peeve was: people who can't grasp the concept of someone being diffrent and still being every bit as human, and just as capable of living life as anyone else.

I can't believe people are seriously making the argument that it is not a disadvantage to be unable to hear. Next to sight it is the most important sense.

Provided you have it, of course - if you don't, it obviously is not very important.

Right, but since nobody can fly, you can fit in perfectly well with society perfectly without being able to fly. The same isn't true about hearing.

I think you nailed it on the head there, a person is only as disabled as the people around them make them out to be.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Osweld
Not only do you just not get my points or metaphors, I am not, nor have I ever been, arguing about the kid. Aside from my initial post on the first page, I have never even mentioned him. I thought I made it pretty clear what my peeve was: people who can't grasp the concept of someone being diffrent and still being every bit as human, and just as capable of living life as anyone else.

Grrr... you don't exactly seem to get what I'm saying either.

what i didn't say:
"people are different and therefore aren't as human...."
... Deafness, unlike race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is a handicap.
what i did say:
"people with handicaps can't enjoy certain aspects of life."
... which, incidentally, is why glasses, hearing aids, cranes, wheelchairs, and other such implements exist. We acknowledge the existence of impairments and handicaps, then we seek to correct them. We don't deny their existence and argue that people with these handicaps can still live and breathe, thus they don't need to be helped.

do you see that there is a world of difference between these two statements?

Provided you have it, of course - if you don't, it obviously is not very important.

this begs the question.... SO???
Not once did you ever refute the argument that deafness is a handicap and inhibits a person from enjoying certain major aspects of life.
A deaf person might not realize it... but it remains the truth.

[Ted Striker]

You know, the parents have the right to do whatever they see fit with this child. If they don't want to feed or shelter it, they have every right to.

After all, a six year old isn't smart enough yet to make an informed decision! Just becase a 6 year old demands things like oh, food, water, or shelter, doesn't mean the parents should automatically give it to them!

And as far as the state intervening, in the US we have this thing setup called CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, as a safeguard for negligent parents.

The state and courts not only has the right to intervene in parents' decisions, it HAS BEEN DOING SO for a very long time.

A kid that wants to hear should have every right to it. Anything otherwise should be considered abuse. A parent forcing a handicap on their kid? Sounds like abuse to me.

That kid is going to be one angry kid.

Way to go, Worst Parents of the Year.

[Jon Miller]

actually I think maybe this should go before the courts

but legaly, I don't know of anything that says that is wrong

Jon Miller

[Ted Striker]

I agree, the courts is the place to go.

Where the hell is Johnnie Cochran when you need him?!?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I agree, the courts is the place to go.

Where the hell is Johnnie Cochran when you need him?!?

well its not clear from anything I have read about

if that is the case then supreme court

Jon Miller

[Shi Huangdi]

"I think you nailed it on the head there, a person is only as disabled as the people around them make them out to be."

Good job missing my entire point. I was point out why flying/hearing is not a good example. To clarify:

If we all could fly, it would doubtlessly be a burden for those who cannot, in ways we can scarcely imagine. If nobody could hear, there might be ways around things, such as everyone would communicate via written word, for instance. But everything is based on the assumption you can hear. Without being able to hear car horns and other vehicle noises, you would be in danger. Since most people do not know sign language, you can't communicate well with eithers. You couldn't be in a normal classroom if you can't hear, becuase teachers lecture. Your working abilities would be limited because speaking is an important method of communication there- you would have problems in meetings when people speak. There isn't always going to be someone with a telepromter voicing out words. You would have a more limited pool of friends because you could only effectivley communicte with people who know sign language. You could not listen to music.

Whether or not you ever had the ability to hear in the first place, deafness is a disability that severely limits you.

[MORON]

damn evil parents....

[Tingkai]

I can't believe some of you are getting so upset over this.

Fact: the implant can be installed at any time and at any age. When the kid is older, he/she can make an informed decision.

So the child is not being placed in a situation were he/she will be permanently denied the chance of having a implant.

Fact: the implant does not provide perfect hearing. PBS site states: "They will not hear and understand speech the way a hearing person does."

IIRC, deaf people can understand music. I believe that they can "feel" it.

And for those of you who angrily attack deaf culture, do you know what you are talking about? Can you explain deaf culture and what it is you hate about it?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
But everything is based on the assumption you can hear. Without being able to hear car horns and other vehicle noises, you would be in danger.

And yet the deaf people can live quite safely in the "normal" world. They need to be much more aware of their surroundings, but that could be seen as a good thing. It's much better than "normal" people who walk around oblivious to the world.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Since most people do not know sign language, you can't communicate well with eithers. You couldn't be in a normal classroom if you can't hear, becuase teachers lecture.

Just because a person is deaf doesn't mean they can't speak. As well, deaf people can read lips so they are quite capable of attending a lecture.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
You would have a more limited pool of friends because you could only effectivley communicte with people who know sign language.

And most people go through life with a limited pool of friends who speak the same language.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Whether or not you ever had the ability to hear in the first place, deafness is a disability that severely limits you.

Sure it is a disability, but not a severe one. A deaf person faces far fewer problems then someone who is blind, or confined to a wheelchair, mentally disabled, or unable to speak.

[The Mad Monk]

I think the parents are wrong to not let the child get the implant; nevertheless, it is their right to do so. It is the child's right to get the implant when she is mature, and to heap tons tons of guilt on them for not allowing her to do it earlier.

Can people live more or less 'fuller' lives than others? Absolutely. The argument that those who never had a particular ability and so can't miss it dosen't enter into the equation. If I had wings, or telepathy, or the smelling ability of your average canine in addition to what i already possess, I have no doubt it would make my life richer and "fuller". I can say this without ever having had any of these abilities, because I know they grant me access to new worlds of experience.

I don't have a problem with "deaf culture", but I do have a problem with those who will limit an individual's ability to interact with "outsiders" because they may abandon their culture. I have a similar problem with social workers who block adoptions of African-American children by white parents because "they will be cut off from black culture". It seems to me that a culture should be able to stand on its own merits, and if it requires artificial props, perhaps there isn't much of value in it.

[Jack the Bodiless]

One aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned yet: the cost of the special tuition and other help that this child will need.

The advocates of "deaf culture" should be made to pay for it.

Abolish all special provision for the deaf (except those who can't benefit from a cochlear implant). No sign language tutors and so forth. If the "deaf culture" people want these things, they must organize and pay for them themselves. It is immoral to expect taxpayers to support those who choose to live like this.

Though this kid didn't choose deafness. A six-year-old IS responsible enough to make this choice. Screw the parents.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
One aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned yet: the cost of the special tuition and other help that this child will need.

The advocates of "deaf culture" should be made to pay for it.

Abolish all special provision for the deaf (except those who can't benefit from a cochlear implant). No sign language tutors and so forth. If the "deaf culture" people want these things, they must organize and pay for them themselves. It is immoral to expect taxpayers to support those who choose to live like this.

Though this kid didn't choose deafness. A six-year-old IS responsible enough to make this choice. Screw the parents.

According to PBS, after an implant is put in the person still needs extensive special tuition and other help.