Hearies view on a CI kid... its a bummer

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe that language-development with children that cannot hear, that use sign-language is different than the development of children that do hear.

You know what, We'll ask Jillio to find us an article on that.

I did find this using Google. (Sorry Jillio, Google will have to do until you come online..)
DEAF BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN: LEARNING THEIR FIRST LANGUAGE

HEARING FAMILIES WITH DEAF BABIES
90% of Deaf babies are born into hearing families, and very often their parents and relatives don't know anything about being deaf. It often takes a long time to discover that the baby or young child is deaf. Mostly this will be discovered because the infant is not development speech in the way that hearing babies do this. The baby will then undergo a series of hearing tests. If these show that the baby is deaf, then the family will be referred to one of the intervention centres.



HOW A HEARING BABY AND YOUNG CHILD LEARN A SPOKEN LANGUAGE (SPOKEN LANGUAGE)
Every baby is born with the potential to accquire a language. Children learn language with only small amounts of knowledge of a language and they internalise and learn it with ease. It is, however, important that the environment stimulates this inborn language ability. It is also very important that they receive environment input to develop a "normal" language ability. To develop a normal language ability, there must be interaction between the baby and young child, and his/her environment (people). It is therefore very important that the mother/caregiver and family talk to the baby and young child to stimulate his/her language ability.

The first few months a baby would make meaningless vocalisations. From about 7-12 months the baby would start to babble and clearly show that he/she enjoys interaction with the caregiven. From about 12-18 months the baby will start to use single words (e.g. mummy) and by 18-22 months, start to use two words together (e.g. "come play"). From 22-36 months the child starts to put words together to form sentences. In the beginning these sentences are usually very simple, but by the age of 36 months, a child with normal language development can use quite complicated sentences.


HOW A DEAF BABY AND YOUNG CHILD A ACQUIRE A FIRST LANGUAGE (SIGN LANGUAGE)
A Deaf baby is born with the same sensitivity and potential to acquire a language as a hearing baby. (To develop a human language a baby is not dependent on speech). Language input from the environment is just as important for a Deaf baby because language is built through interaction with the environment (mother/caregiver, family). The only difference between a hearing and a Deaf baby is that spoken and signed languages use dfferent modalities. In the case of the hearing baby, it is the acoustic or hearing mode. In the case of Deaf babies, it is the visual or seeing mode.

Research has shown that Deaf babies and young children acquire signing skills in the same way and at the same time as hearing babies acquire speech skills. In the first few months the Deaf baby would make meaningless vocalisations and gestures. From about 7-12 months the baby would use elementary gestures to "talk" to his/her mother/caregiver. Between about 12-18 months the baby would start to use simple but meaningful signs in isolation (e.g. sign for drink or mummy), and from about 18-22 months the baby will start to combine two signs to communicate something (e.g. signing "mummy give"). If the Deaf child receives adequate sign language stimulation he/she soon develops the ability to sign simple sentences and progressively
Click to expand...
 
Cloggy said:
I believe that language-development with children that cannot hear, that use sign-language is different than the development of children that do hear.

You know what, We'll ask Jillio to find us an article on that.

I did find this using Google. (Sorry Jillio, Google will have to do until you come online..)
Click to expand...

I don't need to find another article, cloggy. Yours supports my claim that sign languge in deaf children, and spoken language in hearing children is aquired in the same way, progresses through the same stages, and fulfills the same innate capacity for language.
 
Cloggy said:
No you are not. YOu are just changing the subject.
You don't know if there is a bump. And for someone that is supposed to be working with children with CI, that is very strange.
If you work with these children, you would know. You don't - reveiling!

And how did my post make you think I am denying anything... You really know how to change the subject...
Jillio, are you denying that children with CI can hear?
Click to expand...

Cloggy, you are the one that contradicted my post. That is evidence enough.
I asserted that being able to "feel" the CI through the skin did not mean that bone had not been removed in order to receive the implant. You said I was wrong. If I am wrong, then you are then saying that bone did not have to be removed in order to receive the CI. Perhaps if you owuld stop contraticting everything I say simply because I am saying it, and read a bit more clearly, you wouldn't back yourself intothese corners on a consistent basis.
 
Audiofuzzy said:
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Sure, jilly... :)

Fuzzy
Click to expand...

I see. So now you are an omnipotent being that can interpret the mind of God? Unless you are God's equal, I doubt seriously that is so. In which case, you cannot rule out any possibility. Last time I check, you were far short of being a profit.

And don't call me jilly.
 
Cloggy said:
Quit asking questions to stir up the pot.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? Asking for explanation or clarification is stirring up the pot? Do you and fuzzy like it in the corner you two have managed to back yourself into?
 
Cloggy said:
No you are not. YOu are just changing the subject.
You don't know if there is a bump. And for someone that is supposed to be working with children with CI, that is very strange.
If you work with these children, you would know. You don't - reveiling!

And how did my post make you think I am denying anything... You really know how to change the subject...
Jillio, are you denying that children with CI can hear?
Click to expand...

No, cloggy, I am not changing the meaning. Yous imply didn't get the meaning inthe first place.
 
jillio said:
Excuse me? Asking for explanation or clarification is stirring up the pot? Do you and fuzzy like it in the corner you two have managed to back yourself into?
Click to expand...
Wiggle..Wiggle..Wiggle..Wiggle..Wiggle..Wiggle..Wiggle..Wiggle..Wiggle..Wiggle..Wiggle..
 
Cloggy said:
Excellent,

Arguments like "God wants your child to be deaf" are perfectly fine, and good arguments, but as soon as "Jesus heals a deaf person" is used.... you should not use that kind of argumentation.

Guess you don't like the idea that god is perfectly fine with "healing the deaf"...

And about "incapable of interpreting the motives of God".... what kind of nonsense is that.?? It has been done over the last 2000 years - and more.
When you invent they guy, you can interpret "his" meanings any way you want.
History proves it!
Click to expand...

And that is exactly why it is myth. It is man's interpretation, and by definition, man is not equal to God, and therefore, cannot interpret the mind of God. Where in the Bible does it say that God "cured a man from deafness in order to take away his disease and make him well?"

Nope, when one reads the words in a book, one must derive meaning based on one's ability to interpret those words. The words in the book are man's words, therefore, the true meaning of any action described is based on human interpretation. Therefore, you, or anyone else, cannot know the mind of any omnipotent being, if there even is one.

How about this explanation......religion has been used throught he ages to explainthat for which civilization does not have sufficent scientific knowledge to explain. Therefore, there are all kinds of references in old religious texts that have since been proven scientifically. Manonce thought the world was flat, cloggy, but I would hope that we have all advanced past that point. Tornados were once considered to be God's revenge....we know know what a tornado is and why it occurs.
 
jillio said:
Cloggy, you are the one that contradicted my post. That is evidence enough.
I asserted that being able to "feel" the CI through the skin did not mean that bone had not been removed in order to receive the implant. You said I was wrong. If I am wrong, then you are then saying that bone did not have to be removed in order to receive the CI. Perhaps if you owuld stop contraticting everything I say simply because I am saying it, and read a bit more clearly, you wouldn't back yourself intothese corners on a consistent basis.
Click to expand...
Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle ....
 
Cloggy said:
I was mocked by jillio about my english as well.... but that didn't stop anyone...
Ah well.
Click to expand...

I didn't mock your English, cloggy. Simply pointed out that your inconsistent use caused misunderstandings regarding your intended meaning. Grow up.
 
jillio said:
And that is exactly why it is myth. It is man's interpretation, and by definition, man is not equal to God, and therefore, cannot interpret the mind of God. Where in the Bible does it say that God "cured a man from deafness in order to take away his disease and make him well?"

Nope, when one reads the words in a book, one must derive meaning based on one's ability to interpret those words. The words in the book are man's words, therefore, the true meaning of any action described is based on human interpretation. Therefore, you, or anyone else, cannot know the mind of any omnipotent being, if there even is one.

How about this explanation......religion has been used throught he ages to explainthat for which civilization does not have sufficent scientific knowledge to explain. Therefore, there are all kinds of references in old religious texts that have since been proven scientifically. Manonce thought the world was flat, cloggy, but I would hope that we have all advanced past that point. Tornados were once considered to be God's revenge....we know know what a tornado is and why it occurs.
Click to expand...

So basically you are saying....
God did not make people deaf !!!​

Oh darn..... Deaf culture just lost another argument...
Jillio.... stop when you're ahead...
 
jillio said:
I didn't mock your English, cloggy. Simply pointed out that your inconsistent use caused misunderstandings regarding your intended meaning. Grow up.
Click to expand...
1.89 is long enough shorty.
 
Cloggy said:
Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle .... Wiggle ....
Click to expand...

Now there's an intelligent reply! An obvious attempt to avoid addressing those things that point out your inconsistencies. Very ineffective and childish.
 
jillio said:
Now there's an intelligent reply! An obvious attempt to avoid addressing those things that point out your inconsistencies. Very ineffective and childish.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be intelligent.... don't tell me you are????
 
Cloggy said:
So basically you are saying....
God did not make people deaf !!!​

Oh darn..... Deaf culture just lost another argument...
Jillio.... stop when you're ahead...
Click to expand...

Can you support and prove the existence of God, or that God made people deaf empirically, cloggy? And if you recall, the original post was not about God creating anything, but of curing something. How about if you stick to the topic? You attempts to divert are getting quite tiresome.

Or are you attempting to project your Christian views on an entire group, just as you attempt to project your CI and oral views?
 
Cloggy said:
Not trying to be intelligent.... don't tell me you are????
Click to expand...

Quite obviously you aren't attempting to be intelligent. If you were, you would address the issues rather than relpying like a child with no answer simply because they don't understand the question. Give it up cloggy. You've backed yorself too far into a corner to achieve any sort of gracious recovery at this point.
 
jillio said:
Can you support and prove the existence of God, or that God made people deaf empirically, cloggy? And if you recall, the original post was not about God creating anything, but of curing something. How about if you stick to the topic? You attempts to divert are getting quite tiresome.

Or are you attempting to project your Christian views on an entire group, just as you attempt to project your CI and oral views?
Click to expand...
Ah, I guess this is you being intelligent..
OK, I'll join you...

Existence of god: it has been proven that he does not exist.
Recall: 1 post was about that... then things move on.. Try to keep up...
Sticking to the topic: "Hearies view on a CI kid... its a bummer" vs "god heals".... yeh, let's stick to the topic.
Divert: No, just following your lead....

Just brainstorming here.....
EH, yes, jesus was brought up; healing deaf people. The argument is that in that case, god does not mind healing deafness. It can also imply that deafness is not a gift from god... Otherwise.... why take it away again..
This leads to the argument used by some people that "Deafness is a gift of god" and that you have to accept it. But... god heals deafness... The bible.... the exact word of god.. says it heals... so - it must be a desease, a handicap...

So you took away the argument that god wants deaf people to be deaf... He does not. He heals them.....
 
jillio said:
Quite obviously you aren't attempting to be intelligent. If you were, you would address the issues rather than relpying like a child with no answer simply because they don't understand the question. Give it up cloggy. You've backed yorself too far into a corner to achieve any sort of gracious recovery at this point.
Click to expand...
What's with all the corners and "relpying" "yorself" etc...

Gracious recovery..... oh my god.... Eh, from what.?

Now take your red hair out of the corner of your mouth and write something constructive..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top