Cochlear decison

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wrong.... but I can see the word turns you on...

Not wrong in the least. You simply are unaware of the meaning your word choice has. And I can't attribute it to English not being your native language. It is directly attributed to your audist nature.
 
Not wrong in the least. You simply are unaware of the meaning your word choice has. And I can't attribute it to English not being your native language. It is directly attributed to your audist nature.
Wrong again... and there's "audist"... again...
 
Yes, we realized "there's that audsit again" when you showed up yesterday.

Prove me wrong.
 
Cloggy - the real question remains; With the advent of technology do we (the deaf) really need to hear and speak verbally?

your choice of not wanting the technology. Its my choice to wanted to hear so i use the technology. I honestly dont see the aguement in this thread that has been debated... 100s of 1000s, of million times.

It really seems like people are scared of audigist pushing hearing into deaf people, decreasing the deaf culture. Even if you can hear with the technology available, you can still be part of the deaf culture, so I dont know why you (everyone in these threads) agrue about if CI are "correct"
 
your choice of not wanting the technology. Its my choice to wanted to hear so i use the technology. I honestly dont see the aguement in this thread that has been debated... 100s of 1000s, of million times.

It really seems like people are scared of audigist pushing hearing into deaf people, decreasing the deaf culture. Even if you can hear with the technology available, you can still be part of the deaf culture, so I dont know why you (everyone in these threads) agrue about if CI are "correct"

It really has nothing to do with decreasing Deaf culture. Many,many CI users are members of Deaf culture.

There are those that believe, hearing people that is, that the CI makes a person hearing and therefore, they will have no need of Deaf culture, signed languages, or any other accommodation or support. That is what we argue against. Not the implantation itself.
 
I can do all of this without speaking or hearing... I have no desire to fly a plane, but I know of Deaf people who have. What does any of this have to do with speaking or hearing? I am happiest on days when I do not have to use my voice or my HA's at all... I am happy :deaf:, proud :deaf:... so why try to make language seem like it is only speech?

Sorry about that... you said
Cloggy - the real question remains; With the advent of technology do we (the deaf) really need to hear and speak verbally?
(Bold by me)
... so I wrongly assumed it was about CHOICE of using technology....... That's why I answered
Do you really need to drive a car? Fly a plane? Use electricity? Take digital pictures? Flush a toilet? Post on AllDeaf? - Off course not... It's a choice..

Does this child need heart surgery now or should we wait until it's old enough to make her/his own decision is another question..

So... you want to want to know... "Why do we need to speak ?...."..
You don't need to.. Your decision.... assuming you're old enough to make that decision
 
your choice of not wanting the technology. Its my choice to wanted to hear so i use the technology. I honestly dont see the aguement in this thread that has been debated... 100s of 1000s, of million times.

It really seems like people are scared of audigist pushing hearing into deaf people, decreasing the deaf culture. Even if you can hear with the technology available, you can still be part of the deaf culture, so I dont know why you (everyone in these threads) agrue about if CI are "correct"

Did you tell your parents "I want a CI" when you were 2?
 
Cloggy... You had a reputation, and now I see you in action... I am sorely disappointed. Much weaker than I had projected you to be.
 
Yes, we realized "there's that audsit again" when you showed up yesterday.

Prove me wrong.
"We".. as in "The queens "we"" I guess...
Cannot prove something that's only in your head... But I'm sure you can prove it to yourself. (as in "the queens yourself".)
 
your choice of not wanting the technology. Its my choice to wanted to hear so i use the technology. I honestly dont see the aguement in this thread that has been debated... 100s of 1000s, of million times.

It really seems like people are scared of audigist pushing hearing into deaf people, decreasing the deaf culture. Even if you can hear with the technology available, you can still be part of the deaf culture, so I dont know why you (everyone in these threads) agrue about if CI are "correct"

My take on peoples' views, and correct me anyone if I'm wrong, is that it's not so much the CI itself as forcing the surgery onto an infant. What I've seen is people agree that parents should start with ASL and HAs, if the kid's ok with them, and then if the kid gets older and wants to go the CI route when s/he's old enough to make an informed decision, then it's ok. What I've seen get on people's nerves is hearing parents that want to force their deaf child to be hearing. They want to force them to hear, and speak, just like them, and aren't in the least willing to accomodate the child's deafness, even though it's much better for the child if they do. Some parents don't even take into consideration that HA's might work just as well as, if not better than, a CI for their child.
 
"We".. as in "The queens "we"" I guess...
Cannot prove something that's only in your head... But I'm sure you can prove it to yourself. (as in "the queens yourself".)

We as in the Deaf.

You stated I am wrong. Prove it. Let's see something empirical to back up your delusions.:cool2: I have already provided such to support my claims.
 
"We".. as in "The queens "we"" I guess...
Cannot prove something that's only in your head... But I'm sure you can prove it to yourself. (as in "the queens yourself".)

I along with several others agree with Jillio. Not sorry to say.
 
so Cloggy.... is CI surgery a matter of life and death situation like heart surgery?
 
Did you tell your parents "I want a CI" when you were 2?
No but did my parents do their best to do whats best for me? I would have to say yes. They did their job, and im happy for what they have done.

It really has nothing to do with decreasing Deaf culture. Many,many CI users are members of Deaf culture.

There are those that believe, hearing people that is, that the CI makes a person hearing and therefore, they will have no need of Deaf culture, signed languages, or any other accommodation or support. That is what we argue against. Not the implantation itself.
Gonna have to say even though I cant"hear", im hearing a lot of the times since i wear my implants almost 12/7. But i still have some/little amount of accommodations.
However I'm somewhat upset i never got the chance to learn ASL but my parents actually wanted me to learn ASL but i refused. I'm upset i refused when i was younger.
Implanting an infants another thing. Thats up to the parents as they have the ABILITY to do whats best for their child. If i have a deaf child (which is likely, and kinda hope so lol), I'd implant him/her. Thats just who i am, and would decide.


My take on peoples' views, and correct me anyone if I'm wrong, is that it's not so much the CI itself as forcing the surgery onto an infant. What I've seen is people agree that parents should start with ASL and HAs, if the kid's ok with them, and then if the kid gets older and wants to go the CI route when s/he's old enough to make an informed decision, then it's ok. What I've seen get on people's nerves is hearing parents that want to force their deaf child to be hearing. They want to force them to hear, and speak, just like them, and aren't in the least willing to accomodate the child's deafness, even though it's much better for the child if they do. Some parents don't even take into consideration that HA's might work just as well as, if not better than, a CI for their child.
Why waste all of those precious years to get the cochlear up and working for you. Right now, my left cochlear sucks cause I never been able to hear out of that side for all of my life. My right, is just so damn clear like watching HD HBO boxing seeing all of the sweat coming off the bodies after each punch.

Earlier someone is implanted, they better off the cochlear will be adapted to the the implant and it's technology
I still agree to trying hearing aids first to making 100% sure that they can hear or not out of hearings before going to surgery.
Asl sure, continue with it no matter if theyre deaf with implants or not.

Even with the implant in a deafie, they're still gonna need to make accommodations for the child. THAT is where they're uneducated on.
 
Last edited:
Ability to and right to are very different things.

Where did you get the infomation that has led you to the conclusion of "earlier the better"?
 
My PT told me about a deaf boy that she worked with for a while. She said he had been implanted when he was around 1 or 2 but he never took to his implant and he refused to wear it and now he's in a signing program. This was a couple of years ago while I was in rehab after a bout with a severe infection.
 
Ability to and right to are very different things.

Where did you get the infomation that has led you to the conclusion of "earlier the better"?

Parents DO have the ability to do what they want/best for their child, as far as im concerned, theres no "right" crap for this.

I get the conclusion from my experience. My right is so well hearing, but my left is so... horrible hearing. Probably cause my right has been hearing for years, and my left been hearing for 2 years tops
 
Parents DO have the ability to do what they want/best for their child, as far as im concerned, theres no "right" crap for this.

I get the conclusion from my experience. My right is so well hearing, but my left is so... horrible hearing. Probably cause my right has been hearing for years, and my left been hearing for 2 years tops

I disagree. Parents have the right to make said decisions, but unless they are fully informed and considering a perspective other than their own hearing perspective, they are lacking in ability to.

You experience is not generalizable to anyone but you. It is anecdote and individual.
 
Sign. Language =/= speech

No, the original notation was correct: language =/= speech

You might be thinking of the English language and equating it with speech, but even that's not correct since English can also be conveyed through signs, the written word, Braille, Morse code, and probably other more obscure means that I'm not familiar with, and all of those modes could legitimately be called language.

So what's the connection between "submerged in sign language" and "no (speech) therapy required"

I don't understand what you're asking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top