A Cure

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread should now be titled "Which is better, ASL or Oral?"


I am fluent in ESL, ASL, and oral communication.

Which is best for me?

Depends. On many things.

In the workforce, which is 99.9% hearing, oral communication works best for me. Why? 'Cuz that is the language being used by 99.9% of hearing people (Duh!)

When I am with old-school deaf people, ESL is best since that is what they are used to.

When I am with deaf people my age and younger, ASL works best.


Now, if you ask me which one I like best, there is no 'best'. Different languages apply to different environments.

However, what I WISH is, when I was in grade school, having an ASL interpreter would have helped me get through life better.

Of course, FJ is going to ask me why.

To all of you hearing people with deaf children who still don't get it:

Deaf means "cannot hear like a normal person". You can slap on hearing aids, CI's, and everything else that is presumed to be a "cure", but your child DOES NOT hear what everyone is supposed to hear.

Your child is depending on VISUAL clues to communicate. Lipreading is unbelievably hard and draining on your child. You have no clue as to how much effort it is to pay attention to everything someone says by concentrating on someones upper torso, face, and lips nonstop. My family thought I was a whack-job since I was always nervous, tired, and confused. They did not understand what the hell I was going through (and probably did not give a shit either). I still get migraine headaches after meetings & discussions with hearing people.

ASL (or any kind of sign language) makes a HUGE difference in a deaf child's ability to understand what the hell you are saying. You can teach your child to lipread and send him/her to speech therapy, yes, however, using sign language is still the most important way to get communication started.

Of course, there are some hearing 'specialists' out there that preach differently. My parents were told that I will become retarded if I learned sign language.

For me, ASL eliminates most humiliating misunderstandings, especially when discussing serious, detailed topics.

My opinion, but when it comes to sign language, late-deafened people are much more difficult to teach, and are less inclined to learn the language.
 
I have to clarify - Hearing Loss :)

I'll get numbers and sources. Its on my other computer that I barely use anymore.

No need to go to the trouble. Now that I see it is "hearing loss" I see that the category is extremely broad and would include those who have an age related minor loss, etc. Not a population reflective of deaf concerns. Thanks!:ty:

And I agree...when the category is changed to "deaf" then the numbers of those using some form of manual language would go up tremendously.
 
This thread should now be titled "Which is better, ASL or Oral?"


I am fluent in ESL, ASL, and oral communication.

Which is best for me?

Depends. On many things.

In the workforce, which is 99.9% hearing, oral communication works best for me. Why? 'Cuz that is the language being used by 99.9% of hearing people (Duh!)

When I am with old-school deaf people, ESL is best since that is what they are used to.

When I am with deaf people my age and younger, ASL works best.


Now, if you ask me which one I like best, there is no 'best'. Different languages apply to different environments.

However, what I WISH is, when I was in grade school, having an ASL interpreter would have helped me get through life better.

Of course, FJ is going to ask me why.

To all of you hearing people with deaf children who still don't get it:

Deaf means "cannot hear like a normal person". You can slap on hearing aids, CI's, and everything else that is presumed to be a "cure", but your child DOES NOT hear what everyone is supposed to hear.

Your child is depending on VISUAL clues to communicate. Lipreading is unbelievably hard and draining on your child. You have no clue as to how much effort it is to pay attention to everything someone says by concentrating on someones upper torso, face, and lips nonstop. My family thought I was a whack-job since I was always nervous, tired, and confused. They did not understand what the hell I was going through (and probably did not give a shit either). I still get migraine headaches after meetings & discussions with hearing people.

ASL (or any kind of sign language) makes a HUGE difference in a deaf child's ability to understand what the hell you are saying. You can teach your child to lipread and send him/her to speech therapy, yes, however, using sign language is still the most important way to get communication started.

Of course, there are some hearing 'specialists' out there that preach differently. My parents were told that I will become retarded if I learned sign language.

For me, ASL eliminates most humiliating misunderstandings, especially when discussing serious, detailed topics.

My opinion, but when it comes to sign language, late-deafened people are much more difficult to teach, and are less inclined to learn the language.

Great post. Well said.
 
Wirelessly posted

jillio said:
I have to clarify - Hearing Loss :)

I'll get numbers and sources. Its on my other computer that I barely use anymore.

No need to go to the trouble. Now that I see it is "hearing loss" I see that the category is extremely broad and would include those who have an age related minor loss, etc. Not a population reflective of deaf concerns. Thanks!:ty:

And I agree...when the category is changed to "deaf" then the numbers of those using some form of manual language would go up tremendously.

I would suspect most of the 4.5 million under 65 would be work-related injuries.
 
Wirelessly posted

Honestly though, I hate how "ASL is a really small minority" was worded. It's akin to reasoning because, I am making this up for demonstrative purposes, 90% of the Cree went to missionary schools or were adopted out to white parents, that Cree is a minority language within the Cree population. Why? It's statistics, statistics doesn't tell the whole premise of why it was skewed that way.
 
Last edited:
Except, as pertains to the deaf, we know the numbers are skewed because of oralism...hope I understood, Souggy.
 
Wirelessly posted

Honestly though, I hate how "ASL is a really small minority" was worded. It's akin to reasoning because, I am making this up for demonstrative purposes, 90% of the Cree went to missionary schools or were adopted out to white parents, that Cree is a minority language within the Cree population. Why? It's statistics, statistics doesn't tell the whole premise of why it was skewed that way.

Bingo. Which is why I wanted to see the source so that I could see what operational definitions were being used, what population was used, etc. But when I found that the numbers were referring to "hearing loss" and was too broad to be useful, I had all the info I needed.
 
Bingo. Which is why I wanted to see the source so that I could see what operational definitions were being used, what population was used, etc. But when I found that the numbers were referring to "hearing loss" and was too broad to be useful, I had all the info I needed.
there is nothing wrong with asking for the source or providing it when asked. :wave:
 
There's alot more people who use ASL than we realize. I don't live in a big city but everywhere I go, I always see someone signing, or people signing to me once they find out that I'm deaf. I had to politely tell them I grew up without ASL so I don't know it well yet. I could let them continue signing, if it wasn't at my doctor's office, or I wasn't purchasing anything... or just general important stuffs where I need clear communication so I know what's going on.

The bolded is even more true when you factor in hearing people who aren't able to speak for a myriad of reasons, so they sign.
 
there is nothing wrong with asking for the source or providing it when asked. :wave:

Depends on the reason it is asked. And once the situation was explained, I accepted PFH's explanation and did not insist on a source. He provided the info I was seeking, and I trust his expertise in these matters.

Let it go, rd.
 
Wirelessly posted

rockdrummer said:
Bingo. Which is why I wanted to see the source so that I could see what operational definitions were being used, what population was used, etc. But when I found that the numbers were referring to "hearing loss" and was too broad to be useful, I had all the info I needed.
there is nothing wrong with asking for the source or providing it when asked. :wave:

Why?

If someone said Savannah monitors sustain on a diet of Giant African Land Snails, and then someone else took it and said "all monitor lizards eat snails," then I ask for proof... then the "proof" was revealed it was in context of one species instead of an entire clade of 70+ species, why would I continue to ask for the source once it's revealed it was misquoted?
 
Wirelessly posted



Why?

If someone said Savannah monitors sustain on a diet of Giant African Land Snails, and then someone else took it and said "all monitor lizards eat snails," then I ask for proof... then the "proof" was revealed it was in context of one species instead of an entire clade of 70+ species, why would I continue to ask for the source once it's revealed it was misquoted?

Again, someone who "gets it." So nice when I run into people who are actually familiar with research practices and valid reasons for providing sources.
 
Depends on the reason it is asked. And once the situation was explained, I accepted PFH's explanation and did not insist on a source. He provided the info I was seeking, and I trust his expertise in these matters.

Let it go, rd.
Let what go? I simply made a general comment about providing sources.
 
Wirelessly posted



Why?

If someone said Savannah monitors sustain on a diet of Giant African Land Snails, and then someone else took it and said "all monitor lizards eat snails," then I ask for proof... then the "proof" was revealed it was in context of one species instead of an entire clade of 70+ species, why would I continue to ask for the source once it's revealed it was misquoted?
It was a general comment.
 
Again, someone who "gets it." So nice when I run into people who are actually familiar with research practices and valid reasons for providing sources.
Valid reasoning is subjective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top