Deaf "culture"

[Jack the Bodiless]

Not as much as they'd need if they remained deaf.

After all, that's the whole point of getting the implant fitted: to remove a disability.

[November Adam]

I'm with Dinodoc on this, I'm not advocating why the parents have made this choice, but their right to do so. I also think that the parents are being selfish, and irresponsible.

And just because you have particular senses, or abilities does not mean you automatically have a fuller life. You have to appreciate them and use them to have a fuller life.

Example: Walking, if you sit all day you don't appreciate this ability.

We have shapped our environment to suit our abilities, we have also started to shape our environment to suit individuals without particular abilities. Yet our attitude still is that there is something wrong for people without these abilities, and they are objects of our pity. This is wrong.

[ranskaldan]

Mmmm.... so many new points over the past one day.

POINT: Deaf or handicapped people can still enjoy life if they pay attention, as compared to a normal people who is oblivious to the world around them. For example, a cripple who participates in the Paralympics gets more out of life than a couch potato with working legs.
Rebuttal: This is not a fair comparison. You are comparing a handicapped person who is working hard and a normal person who is oblivious and lazy.
If you compare a deaf person working hard in life and a normal person doing the same thing, the normal person will enjoy life more.

POINT: The deaf person can still get the implant later.
Rebuttal: The ages of 1-7 are crucial to linguistic development. A little kid can pick up a language in 2 years with little effort, an adult takes many years of study.
Thus, if the deaf child doesn't get the implant, she will learn to write, read, and maybe speak English, but not listen to it. Once she passes the crucial age, it will be very hard to learn to do so. It'll be as if she is permanently stuck as a tourist in a foreign land, trying to understand road directions. Inhumane, I should say.

POINT: After the implant, intensive tuition and help will still be needed.
Rebuttal: So? The child will still be better off than if she is totally deaf.

POINT: So what if the deaf only has friends who can speak Sign Language? We only have friends who can speak our languages.
Rebuttal: We live in countries where the entire population can speak the same language as we do. Deaf people, however, are stuck as a minority. We can choose from 99% of the population of our countries. The deaf choose from 1%, or less. Thus, the friends pool of the deaf is still much more limited than that of a hearing person.

POINT: Deafness isn't as serious as blindness etc.
Just because it isn't as serious doesn't mean we shouldn't correct it. Deafness is still very serious. It severely limits the person. Imagine that you can't hear a single sound, ever. No music, no car horns, no sound effects, no speech. Are you saying that is not limiting???

[Caligastia]

Give up Dinodoc, you know you are wrong.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Give up Dinodoc,

Yes, I have better things to do than argue with a brickwall.

But I will leave you with the parting shot toward all the whining about the deaf not being able to hear music: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/uow-bod111901.php

[ranskaldan]

Of course deaf people can sense vibrations...
but hear music with the same clarity as hearing people??????
That article doesn't say that. No one says that.

I think it's heartless to say.... deaf people can still hear music, thus we don't need to give them hearing!

It's like saying.... short-sighted people can still see things, thus they don't need glasses!

Heartless.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Yes, I have better things to do than argue with a brickwall.

I have better things to do than argue with someone who has no common sense.

[Tingkai]

deleted

[November Adam]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Mmmm.... so many new points over the past one day.

POINT: Deaf or handicapped people can still enjoy life if they pay attention, as compared to a normal people who is oblivious to the world around them. For example, a cripple who participates in the Paralympics gets more out of life than a couch potato with working legs.
Rebuttal: This is not a fair comparison. You are comparing a handicapped person who is working hard and a normal person who is oblivious and lazy.
If you compare a deaf person working hard in life and a normal person doing the same thing, the normal person will enjoy life more.

Counter: One cannot determine who will enjoy life more, and its offensive to think that. How can you quantify this statement? It's just pure specualtion.

POINT: The deaf person can still get the implant later.
Rebuttal: The ages of 1-7 are crucial to linguistic development. A little kid can pick up a language in 2 years with little effort, an adult takes many years of study.
Thus, if the deaf child doesn't get the implant, she will learn to write, read, and maybe speak English, but not listen to it. Once she passes the crucial age, it will be very hard to learn to do so. It'll be as if she is permanently stuck as a tourist in a foreign land, trying to understand road directions. Inhumane, I should say.

Counter: Anyone when immersed in an environment can learn, and hardly be stuck permanently. Also for a child to learn a language the people around them have to be using it as well. Both of her parents don't.

POINT: After the implant, intensive tuition and help will still be needed.
Rebuttal: So? The child will still be better off than if she is totally deaf.

Counter: This previous point was a counter to the financial strain a child who is deaf would put on the education system. It was showing that there would still be financial obligations. Your rebutal doesn't deal with that.

POINT: So what if the deaf only has friends who can speak Sign Language? We only have friends who can speak our languages.
Rebuttal: We live in countries where the entire population can speak the same language as we do. Deaf people, however, are stuck as a minority. We can choose from 99% of the population of our countries. The deaf choose from 1%, or less. Thus, the friends pool of the deaf is still much more limited than that of a hearing person.

Counter: How many friends do you have? I only have 4 or 5. People tend to gravitate to others with similar intrests, and language abilities. Thus the deaf person would locate others with this particular disability. Besides a deaf person can still use Apolyton, and that's all that you need in life!

POINT: Deafness isn't as serious as blindness etc.
Just because it isn't as serious doesn't mean we shouldn't correct it. Deafness is still very serious. It severely limits the person. Imagine that you can't hear a single sound, ever. No music, no car horns, no sound effects, no speech. Are you saying that is not limiting???

Counter: Most of the limitations that a deaf person would face, would be the ones that others put on them. Not being able to listen to music, or sound effects, are hardly limitations. Regarding communication, if you can read, and write then you can communicate with a deaf person. Sure its not as simple as speaking, and hearing, but the communication barrier would be with yourself (not you personally). Deaf people have to be more alert to their surroundings. How is this a severe limitation?

Also regarding your statement to DinoDoc

Of course deaf people can sense vibrations...
but hear music with the same clarity as hearing people??????
That article doesn't say that. No one says that.

I think it's heartless to say.... deaf people can still hear music, thus we don't need to give them hearing!

He never said this, nor implied it. What he is saying is that we can't force our beliefs on other people. Regarding the music he was showing that deaf people can enjoy it. It is just a different enjoyment.

I would like to see the eradication of the disability known as deafness, as well as other disabilities. Yet at the same time you can not criticize a groups way of dealing with it. If deaf people want to have a culture, then let them.

[ranskaldan]

Well, i see someone who's willing to really debate, instead of call others brick walls. Thank you November Adam.

now.....

Originally posted by November Adam


Counter: One cannot determine who will enjoy life more, and its offensive to think that. How can you quantify this statement? It's just pure specualtion.

As I have said, deaf people are barred from enjoying an entire sense of all the beauty, art, and sentiments that sounds could bring.

Counter: Anyone when immersed in an environment can learn, and hardly be stuck permanently. Also for a child to learn a language the people around them have to be using it as well. Both of her parents don't.

Not for language. Language really is dependent on age. The younger someone is, the faster he/she can pick up a language. This has been proven.

http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/acquisition.html

there's an example where a 13-year-old girl was discovered to never have learnt speech. Even with instruction, she never advanced beyond basic constructions.

The deaf child can go to school, where everyone is speaking English. I don't see why it's so hard.

Counter: This previous point was a counter to the financial strain a child who is deaf would put on the education system. It was showing that there would still be financial obligations. Your rebutal doesn't deal with that.

ok.... but even this is no reason to deny the child the ability to hear.

Counter: How many friends do you have? I only have 4 or 5. People tend to gravitate to others with similar intrests, and language abilities. Thus the deaf person would locate others with this particular disability. Besides a deaf person can still use Apolyton, and that's all that you need in life!

yes, but don't you think it's not right to LIMIT the deaf person's choice to 0.1% of the population?

Counter: Most of the limitations that a deaf person would face, would be the ones that others put on them. Not being able to listen to music, or sound effects, are hardly limitations. Regarding communication, if you can read, and write then you can communicate with a deaf person. Sure its not as simple as speaking, and hearing, but the communication barrier would be with yourself (not you personally). Deaf people have to be more alert to their surroundings. How is this a severe limitation?

Oh cmon, are you seriously saying that not being able to hear speech or car honks isn't a limitation?
Also, not being able to listen to music etc are limitations on the capacity to enjoy life.

He never said this, nor implied it. What he is saying is that we can't force our beliefs on other people. Regarding the music he was showing that deaf people can enjoy it. It is just a different enjoyment.

ok.... and i might hasten to add, a limited enjoyment. the Reason? music was designed for the hearing ear. I would doubt that a deaf person would be able to tell a C from a C#, or a clarinet from a bassoon, just from vibrations. Yet that's where the beauty of music lies. Subtle differences.

I would like to see the eradication of the disability known as deafness, as well as other disabilities. Yet at the same time you can not criticize a groups way of dealing with it. If deaf people want to have a culture, then let them.

but the child in question doesn't want this culture. it's being forced onto her.

[Caligastia]

Your turn to reply November Adam. Your side loses if you or someone else doesnt.

[The Mad Monk]

That's true...in Kindergarten.

[Caligastia]

The side that doesnt rebut loses a debate, are you not aware of this?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Your turn to reply November Adam. Your side loses if you or someone else doesnt.

Just read one of the previous posts, people have been repeating themselves for 6 pages.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Osweld


Just read one of the previous posts, people have been repeating themselves for 6 pages.

But Ranskaldan and November Adam are finally doing this right!