A Violation of Human Rights Re: Forcing A Deaf Child to Wear CI

Status
Not open for further replies.
More information is obtained through non-verbal communication (yes, even for the hearing) than is obtained by auditory information.

And again, you are confusing language with speech. Yet you claim not to be an audist.
Right on lady!!!! English is NOT like the Chinese languages where a difference in pitch (how you pronounce the word) turns a baby talk word into a swear or something like that. Speechreading is valid and NOT a crutch. Yes, there's value to auditory training, but it's not a tool you need to use all the time. Even HEARING people speechread! If you think you don't speechread, take a day where you blindfold yourself when you interact verbally with people. You'll see that yes you DO speechread!
My goodness, but the parents with audist belief systems seem to stick together like glue.
Huh? I never got the vibe that Grendel is audist, except for the normal audist feelings that a lot of hearing parents have when they are still coming to terms with their kid as a Deaf person. And yes Grendel, you ARE very accepting and all.....but I do have to say that most hearing parents still have some audist attitudes. I don't mean that as an insult. More like.......Have you read about how in the old days parents were taught if they adopted a forigen kid, the best thing was to try to assimulate them into white mainstream culture, and they didn't "need" stuff like heritage camps?
It does take time to fully come to terms with a child's difference. It took me 18 years to come to terms with being hoh.
Oh, and jillo, I gotta say I don't think that Grendel is defending FJ and rick b/c they are audist. I think its more like she feels like you're criticzing them as parents. You aren't...you really aren't. But it might be taken that way.
You better do some research. The fact of the matter is, most CI students still require the support services that non-CI students get.
Yes indeedy! Dead on.
 
What do you think labeling is? Duh. Such blindess. Sad.

Using the term while saying that I refuse to label people as such and such is NOT labeling.
 
Wirelessly posted

jillio said:
Wirelessly posted



yeah when you get rid of anyone who disagrees with you, things turn into what you want. That's why you are trying to get a ban for what you call audism, so you can silence everyone you don't like, including the deaf people who don't fall into line. It's crap. No, i won't leave. This isn't your site.

It is certainly more of PFH's site than it is yours.:cool2: Check the name...you are not deaf, nor do you subscribe to and live by Deaf cultural values.

You are nothing more than another audist that thinks they know more what is best for the deaf/Deaf than the deaf/Deaf themselves know. Nothing new...there have been millions of you over the years.

then when you leave, i will.
 
Wirelessly posted

deafdyke said:
More information is obtained through non-verbal communication (yes, even for the hearing) than is obtained by auditory information.

And again, you are confusing language with speech. Yet you claim not to be an audist.
Right on lady!!!! English is NOT like the Chinese languages where a difference in pitch (how you pronounce the word) turns a baby talk word into a swear or something like that. Speechreading is valid and NOT a crutch. Yes, there's value to auditory training, but it's not a tool you need to use all the time. Even HEARING people speechread! If you think you don't speechread, take a day where you blindfold yourself when you interact verbally with people. You'll see that yes you DO speechread!
My goodness, but the parents with audist belief systems seem to stick together like glue.
Huh? I never got the vibe that Grendel is audist, except for the normal audist feelings that a lot of hearing parents have when they are still coming to terms with their kid as a Deaf person. And yes Grendel, you ARE very accepting and all.....but I do have to say that most hearing parents still have some audist attitudes. I don't mean that as an insult. More like.......Have you read about how in the old days parents were taught if they adopted a forigen kid, the best thing was to try to assimulate them into white mainstream culture, and they didn't "need" stuff like heritage camps?
It does take time to fully come to terms with a child's difference. It took me 18 years to come to terms with being hoh.
Oh, and jillo, I gotta say I don't think that Grendel is defending FJ and rick b/c they are audist. I think its more like she feels like you're criticzing them as parents. You aren't...you really aren't. But it might be taken that way.
You better do some research. The fact of the matter is, most CI students still require the support services that non-CI students get.
Yes indeedy! Dead on.

guys, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that speech reading is natural, easy and can provide the entirety of spoken langauge and allow a deaf child to be able to develop fluent spoken language

and

claim that not providing ASL at all times is cruel and will leave a child with profound language deficits.

both can't be true.
 
Wirelessly posted



guys, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that speech reading is natural, easy and can provide the entirety of spoken langauge and allow a deaf child to be able to develop fluent spoken language

and

claim that not providing ASL at all times is cruel and will leave a child with profound language deficits.

both can't be true.

Eh? Why not? I know children who speechread and use ASL, and they speak as well.
 
guys, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that speech reading is natural, easy and can provide the entirety of spoken langauge and allow a deaf child to be able to develop fluent spoken language

and

claim that not providing ASL at all times is cruel and will leave a child with profound language deficits.

both can't be true.

Um... whatever.
 
Wirelessly posted

Beowulf said:
Wirelessly posted



guys, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that speech reading is natural, easy and can provide the entirety of spoken langauge and allow a deaf child to be able to develop fluent spoken language

and

claim that not providing ASL at all times is cruel and will leave a child with profound language deficits.

both can't be true.

Eh? Why not? I know children who speechread and use ASL, and they speak as well.

the claim is that a deaf child can fluently learn spoken language (without delays and deficits) through speech reading alone.

and i don't buy it. I think it is cruel, and most of the time futile. So many deaf people say that lipreading is nothing but guessing and it is exhausting and nearly impossible...so why also claim that it is a perfectly ligit way to learn fluent language?

either it doesn't work and is cruel or it works (and therefore is a perfectly acceptable choice).
 
Wirelessly posted



the claim is that a deaf child can fluently learn spoken language (without delays and deficits) through speech reading alone.

and i don't buy it. I think it is cruel, and most of the time futile. So many deaf people say that lipreading is nothing but guessing and it is exhausting and nearly impossible...so why also claim that it is a perfectly ligit way to learn fluent language?

either it doesn't work and is cruel or it works (and therefore is a perfectly acceptable choice).

Then you really dont know the capabilities of the deaf. I can speechread - very very good.

I wind up interpreting for people who have had a CI for their entire lives. Yes, this is my generation and I'm in the midst of it. And to be frank, I have to LOL at your statements because it truly shows how ignorant you are. The problem with you is your refusal of hearing us out...
 
Wirelessly posted



the claim is that a deaf child can fluently learn spoken language (without delays and deficits) through speech reading alone.

and i don't buy it. I think it is cruel, and most of the time futile. So many deaf people say that lipreading is nothing but guessing and it is exhausting and nearly impossible...so why also claim that it is a perfectly ligit way to learn fluent language?

either it doesn't work and is cruel or it works (and therefore is a perfectly acceptable choice).

My wife is fluent in speechreading, just as she is fluent in ASL. She didn't grow up with just one method, you know.
 
Wirelessly posted



the claim is that a deaf child can fluently learn spoken language (without delays and deficits) through speech reading alone.

and i don't buy it. I think it is cruel, and most of the time futile. So many deaf people say that lipreading is nothing but guessing and it is exhausting and nearly impossible...so why also claim that it is a perfectly ligit way to learn fluent language?

either it doesn't work and is cruel or it works (and therefore is a perfectly acceptable choice).

Oh. I don't know about that claim being made, since I did not read most of this thread. I only speak for myself here when I say that I speak very fluent English and am an expert speechreader. I am not quite as fluent in ASL, since my receptive skills exceed those that are expressive. I cannot remember when I did not speechread, but the idea that I gained fluency of English through speechreading is something I doubt.
 
Wirelessly posted

if it is so easy, why are parents continually being told that it is cruel and that their children will end up with both language and cognitive issues if they choose that path? (as opposed to ASL)
 
Wirelessly posted

if it is so easy, why are parents continually being told that it is cruel and that their children will end up with both language and cognitive issues if they choose that path? (as opposed to ASL)

It is only through the wisdom of hindsight that I agree it is cruel. Language and cognitive issues are not the only things that will arise.
 
You can't claim that speech reading is natural, easy and can provide the entirety of spoken langauge and allow a deaf child to be able to develop fluent spoken language

and

claim that not providing ASL at all times is cruel and will leave a child with profound language deficits.
What does that have to do with auditory-verbal therapy/auditory training?
Speechreading on its OWN cannot provide the entirity of spoken language....but as a COMBONATION, (meaning with auditory input) it can give a lot of access to spoken language. Ask any person who was hoh as a kid....they'll tell you they can do *gasp* BOTH!
I never said that not providing ASL at all times will leave a kid with profound language defiects. I do reconize the need for "hoh" style therapy intervention. But you can balance it. I just don't agree with the thinking that if minimal therapy is good, then that means that a kid's entire existence should be all about therapy therapy therapy 24/7....and that's basicly what AVT is about.
Even many orally trained kids have significent expressive written English issues.
 
Wirelessly posted

if it is so easy, why are parents continually being told that it is cruel and that their children will end up with both language and cognitive issues if they choose that path? (as opposed to ASL)

Nobody said it was easy.... I shake my head at you
 
She didn't grow up with just one method, you know.
Yes, faire joure you are missing that even at Deaf Schools, kids got (and still get) extensive speech training/speech therapy. Not "survival speech" but extensive speech training/speech therapy.
 
I can speechread - very very good.

I wind up interpreting for people who have had a CI for their entire lives.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: Oh, the IRONY!!! Would love love love for you to meet the presidents of Clarke, CID and the other oral programs out there.
he claim is that a deaf child can fluently learn spoken language (without delays and deficits) through speech reading alone.

and i don't buy it. I think it is cruel, and most of the time futile. So many deaf people say that lipreading is nothing but guessing and it is exhausting and nearly impossible...so why also claim that it is a perfectly ligit way to learn fluent language?
So if speechreading is cruel and futile, then how come forcing a kid to exclusively use their residual hearing isn't?
We're not saying that speechreading ALONE can give fluent oral abilty..We're saying it's a useful tool that can be used as part of a bigger picture......
 
Wirelessly posted

deafdyke said:
You can't claim that speech reading is natural, easy and can provide the entirety of spoken langauge and allow a deaf child to be able to develop fluent spoken language

and

claim that not providing ASL at all times is cruel and will leave a child with profound language deficits.
What does that have to do with auditory-verbal therapy/auditory training?
Speechreading on its OWN cannot provide the entirity of spoken language....but as a COMBONATION, (meaning with auditory input) it can give a lot of access to spoken language. Ask any person who was hoh as a kid....they'll tell you they can do *gasp* BOTH!
I never said that not providing ASL at all times will leave a kid with profound language defiects. I do reconize the need for "hoh" style therapy intervention. But you can balance it. I just don't agree with the thinking that if minimal therapy is good, then that means that a kid's entire existence should be all about therapy therapy therapy 24/7....and that's basicly what AVT is about.
Even many orally trained kids have significent expressive written English issues.

the post was for the general audience, not you specifically.

but this one is aimed at you. You say that kids today don't need a lot of therapy but then in the same breath say that they still have language issues....uh, wouldn't that mean that they were in need of therapy?! If you are saying that they can acheive with minimal work, but still end up with "screwed up language" (including that legs, spiders example you throw around), that means they didn't have enough access to the language and therapy they needed when they were young...which is what you yourself are advocating!
 
It's a shame people take offense at the word "audist." I admit I was one at a certain time in my life, big time. I have learned to amend my attitude, and today it is still an ongoing process. :aw:

I have also stated that I had audist views also and like you, I learned to amend my attitude as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top