Is anyone with a hearing impairment considered "deaf"?

jillio said:
My link is interaction with the blind community. Get out from behind your computer screen, and involve yourself in some real life experience. There's your link.
Click to expand...

You assume that I haven't done so. I already explained that elsewhere in AD. And it's funny seeing you say that since you do not know my history or background.

Again, I am not talking exclusively about blind people but people of all kinds with various vision problems on their preferences of the use of the words "visually impaired" or not. I made that abundantly clear. It is YOU who keep reverting to the context of blind people, which I understand, and is pretty much in the same context/vein for Deaf people when it comes to using the description "hearing impaired."
 
kokonut said:
I am talking in general the visually impaired people which includes blind and low vision people. Astigmatism does come with a range of severity. "Impaired" is an all-encompassing word that means different things to different people.

Where have I said that I speak for the blind or deaf community? I have not. I pointed out that vision loss varies as do the range of impairment, just as hearing losss varies as do the range of impairment.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion kokonut.
 
While growing up, Doctors and my family has considered me Hard of Hearing since I grew up as Oral and I have CI.... even though I'm Severely Profoundly Deaf.

But As it is now, I consider myself Deaf, because I'm Profoundly Deaf, meaning I can't hear anything, nothing without my CI. Also I'm learning Deaf Culture and using ASL whenever I'm around Deaf people or my Deaf friends. I'm still Oral.... but I only speak when I'm around hearing people/friends and my Family.
 
I am severe / profound deaf. I can't hear anything in my left ear and in my right ear I can hear only with an aid. (Not exactly well with this new aid but aside from that). I don't like to go into being disabled. I can do anything anyone else does just in a different way. I would be proud to be called Deaf. (and the next person who puts their hands in front of their mouth while speaking is going to get THWAPED upside the head!

Have a nice day:):ty:
 
Hear Again said:
You're right. The Holy Bible is the only book I have in Braille besides a few cookbooks that are much smaller in size. I wish I could own more Braille books, but like you said, they take up too much room. My Holy Bible takes up 3 shelves on my bookshelf.
Click to expand...

:lol: Yeah - that brings back memories, I saw those lovely bounded books of the holy bible in braille taking up so much space at a friend's house.

He was saying that he hopes that the E-reader books can be adapted for the blind, like your PDA, to use it to store so many books on it. Plus it does not take up so much space with the advantage to read any book in one place.

Wonder if this is available yet? I have seen the E-readers in bookshops already.
 
Fumasivil said:
:lol: Yeah - that brings back memories, I saw those lovely bounded books of the holy bible in braille taking up so much space at a friend's house.

He was saying that he hopes that the E-reader books can be adapted for the blind, like your PDA, to use it to store so many books on it. Plus it does not take up so much space with the advantage to read any book in one place.

Wonder if this is available yet? I have seen the E-readers in bookshops already.
Click to expand...

They do have books in Daisy format, but they are limited to the NLS (National Library Service for the Blind and Visually Handicapped). I don't know if audible books from Audible.com or Bookshare.org can be downloaded to a PDA, but I see no reason why they couldn't. This is something I really should look into since it would be so much easier for me to read the Bible on my BrailleNote instead of hardcopy.
 
Hear Again said:
They do have books in Daisy format, but they are limited to the NLS (National Library Service for the Blind and Visually Handicapped). I don't know if audible books from Audible.com or Bookshare.org can be downloaded to a PDA, but I see no reason why they couldn't. This is something I really should look into since it would be so much easier for me to read the Bible on my BrailleNote instead of hardcopy.
Click to expand...

I read that Amazon's Kindle will read books out loud to you , plus stores a lot of books.
It is expensive though, maybe asking your whole family to get it for Christmas?
 
kokonut said:
You assume that I haven't done so. I already explained that elsewhere in AD. And it's funny seeing you say that since you do not know my history or background.

Again, I am not talking exclusively about blind people but people of all kinds with various vision problems on their preferences of the use of the words "visually impaired" or not. I made that abundantly clear. It is YOU who keep reverting to the context of blind people, which I understand, and is pretty much in the same context/vein for Deaf people when it comes to using the description "hearing impaired."
Click to expand...

It is obvious that you have not done so, from the insensitivity of your wording and the refusal to allow the individuals within the community to determine whether they want to be identified as "impaired" or not.
 
Bottesini said:
I read that Amazon's Kindle will read books out loud to you , plus stores a lot of books.
It is expensive though, maybe asking your whole family to get it for Christmas?
Click to expand...

I don't think my family could afford that.
 
Heya Loghead.
This question comes up a lot and it confuses people sometimes.

Some opinions in here, like AlleyCat's, has got it right. It's all about personal preference, what's to stop Clark Kent from calling himself Superman or Victor Von Doom to call himself Dr. Doom.. or the Meji Samurais to nick themselves as Seii Taishoguns as "generals who destroy the East Barbarians".

It's all up to them or you for that matter.

To be politically correct..
If you use your hearing as a means to communicate, but have trouble understanding situations where the speaker has spoken either too fast, softly, or not clear enough for you to understand..
Then that's where Oral communication is your primary form of communicating, and what I would personally see label as "hard of hearing.. Hearing impaired/handicapped.. decreased hearing ability and/or perception."

When it comes to everyone who is deaf/hearing impaired-handicapped and we need to label ourselves to be politically specific to categorize each and every form of our deafness, then this is where we start saying stuff like:
Bilateral Deafness
Profound-Severe Deafness
Mild/Moderate Deafness
Sensorineural / Conductive Deafness..
etc..

We can be even more specific about our loss of hearing functions, there's a method of labeling deafness by the inference of capitalizing the D in the word Deaf.

Being deaf (deaf culture, also known as little d as in the letter) would refer to associating yourself with the world that cannot hear well, which includes everyone.
Just like how you would distinguish between a Feral cat and a pet cat by saying "A wild Feral Cat, and a Domestic House Cat".

Being Deaf (Deaf culture, the big D) would refer to a specific group of Deaf individuals within the deafs. Deaf would refer to people who associate themselves as a "Pure breed" of the deaf people. Like, their lives is all done with Deaf methods, you don't associate with the hearing world for your everyday needs. They went to deaf school, they communicate in sign/written only, basically people who would avoid associating themselves with the hearing people. It's like in the cat example, we would call a particular cat not as a "Feral Cat, Domestic Cat", but more as like a "wild Siamese feral cat, a Domestic Calico House Cat". Its being specific to what kind of a deaf person they are.


I hope that makes sense.
:sadwave:
 
jillio said:
It is obvious that you have not done so, from the insensitivity of your wording and the refusal to allow the individuals within the community to determine whether they want to be identified as "impaired" or not.
Click to expand...

Um, I have not nor have I ever refused or restricted individuals their choices on how they want to be identified as in regards to their vision or hearing loss. No where in my discussions in AD have I done that. Again (see post #60), I am seeing this from a wider perspective. Just as there are people with hearing loss (from mild to profound) do not mind the words "hearing impaired" there are people with a variety and types of vision loss or impairment who are also not perturbed by the words "visually impaired."

Oh, I have interacted with deaf and blind (one was a roommate of mine at Gallaudet), and people at a blind school in Alamogordo, New Mexico. I even had a blind practice partner during Aikido martial arts sessions (he was a black belt in another form of MA but was new to Aikido). And a long, long time ago when I was little we had a blind kid who was a wrestler and we (not just me) wrestled with him. Interesting times back then. Again, I'm not talking about blind people per se but people with a variety and types of vision loss or impairment.

You are missing the point of all this, Jillio. If there are deaf or hh people who do not mind the words "hearing impaired" then there are certainly people with vision problems who also do not mind the words "visually impaired" to describe their vision condition. Hence, a step back looking at the wider picture just as I have done so with "hearing impaired." Unless you are categorically suggesting that ALL blind people or people with vision problems will in fact object to the words "visually impaired"?? That's what it sounds like to me.

Now, again, once more, please stop with this continuing "character assassination" by making implied but unfounded suggestions that have no bearing on who I am or the things I have done (or not).

Just as Deaf people would object to the words "hearing impaired" but not necessarily deaf and hard of hearing people. The same idea is applied to those with a variety of vision loss or impairment who would also not object to the words "visually impaired." Understand now?


Sheesh!
 
Last edited:
kokonut said:
Um, I have not nor have I ever refused or restricted individuals their choices on how they want to be identified as in regards to their vision or hearing loss. No where in my discussions in AD have I done that. Again (see post #60), I am seeing this from a wider perspective. Just as there are people with hearing loss (from mild to profound) do not mind the words "hearing impaired" there are people with a variety and types of vision loss or impairment who are also not perturbed by the words "visually impaired."

Oh, I have interacted with deaf and blind (one was a roommate of mine at Gallaudet), and people at a blind school in Alamogordo, New Mexico. I even had a blind practice partner during Aikido martial arts sessions (he was a black belt in another form of MA but was new to Aikido). And a long, long time ago when I was little we had a blind kid who was a wrestler and we (not just me) wrestled with him. Interesting times back then. Again, I'm not talking about blind people per se but people with a variety and types of vision loss or impairment.

You are missing the point of all this, Jillio. If there are deaf or hh people who do not mind the words "hearing impaired" then there are certainly people with vision problems who also do not mind the words "visually impaired" to describe their vision condition. Hence, a step back looking at the wider picture just as I have done so with "hearing impaired." Unless you are categorically suggesting that ALL blind people or people with vision problems will in fact object to the words "visually impaired"?? That's what it sounds like to me.

Now, again, once more, please stop with this continuing "character assassination" by making implied but unfounded suggestions that have no bearing on who I am or the things I have done (or not).

Just as Deaf people would object to the words "hearing impaired" but not necessarily deaf and hard of hearing people. The same idea is applied to those with a variety of vision loss or impairment who would also not object to the words "visually impaired." Understand now?


Sheesh!
Click to expand...

Link, please. :lol:
 
kokonut said:
Just as Deaf people would object to the words "hearing impaired" but not necessarily deaf and hard of hearing people. The same idea is applied to those with a variety of vision loss or impairment who would also not object to the words "visually impaired." Understand now?


Sheesh!
Click to expand...
I refuse to get in between you and Jillio, but I want to say that I happen to disagree with the idea that 'many Deaf people dont object not only the concept but also the those do not affliate with the "Deaf" ideals. In reality I have seen first hand and second hand of rude, and spiteful contempt that they push out hearing impaired or hard of hearing people.

In discussion of blind people, often there is a lot of denial going on, many of whom actually prefer to pretend they are sighted and talk as so they are!, this isnt unique just to blind peoplem deaf do it too. And strangely those in 'higher audiograms score' tend to deny their true reality of their existence that is pretending to be hearing, in some ways it was the only way to survive mainstream. I been there, and I hardly blame them at all, hearing kids, teachers, practically everyone there are incredibaly insensitive. This same harshness comes from the "Deaf" groups too, ousting them out in belief they dont want to be Deaf, and blames them for 'trying to be hearing' almost as if they havent heard of submission or indoctrination. but i wont go on and on, and how it happens, is far more complex than how it's described here, but in case you think im going to chicken out or hide what i dont know, I wont, here is try put in one example in one sentence or two, as I have other things to do right now, like study. the example would be consesus, and usually of the hearing family, and with the certain well meaning encouragement from hearing teachers ' of the deaf' as they say; strives so hard in assisting the d/hearing impaired students to Overcome. This whole thing is viewed as 'nice' and well a pathway to be normal, no body likes to stand out, a sense of belong is quite powerful, but when one gets older they may begin to wonder and see things differently. Then a trip to the deaf club or social, the motive to fulfill the inquistion only have then backfired with hatred or with crass disapproval. Also hearing-impaired is a medical definition, that represents the scientific ideals. This doesnt mean science is supreme but sadly in society many people do believe that, as does many disjointed explanations, hell the news media is full of those!
I think id stop now and get back to what i am supposed to do.
Bye
 
kokonut said:
Um, I have not nor have I ever refused or restricted individuals their choices on how they want to be identified as in regards to their vision or hearing loss. No where in my discussions in AD have I done that. Again (see post #60), I am seeing this from a wider perspective. Just as there are people with hearing loss (from mild to profound) do not mind the words "hearing impaired" there are people with a variety and types of vision loss or impairment who are also not perturbed by the words "visually impaired."

Oh, I have interacted with deaf and blind (one was a roommate of mine at Gallaudet), and people at a blind school in Alamogordo, New Mexico. I even had a blind practice partner during Aikido martial arts sessions (he was a black belt in another form of MA but was new to Aikido). And a long, long time ago when I was little we had a blind kid who was a wrestler and we (not just me) wrestled with him. Interesting times back then. Again, I'm not talking about blind people per se but people with a variety and types of vision loss or impairment.

You are missing the point of all this, Jillio. If there are deaf or hh people who do not mind the words "hearing impaired" then there are certainly people with vision problems who also do not mind the words "visually impaired" to describe their vision condition. Hence, a step back looking at the wider picture just as I have done so with "hearing impaired." Unless you are categorically suggesting that ALL blind people or people with vision problems will in fact object to the words "visually impaired"?? That's what it sounds like to me.

Now, again, once more, please stop with this continuing "character assassination" by making implied but unfounded suggestions that have no bearing on who I am or the things I have done (or not).

Just as Deaf people would object to the words "hearing impaired" but not necessarily deaf and hard of hearing people. The same idea is applied to those with a variety of vision loss or impairment who would also not object to the words "visually impaired." Understand now?


Sheesh!
Click to expand...
The word, "impaired" needs to be eliminated when describing people...it is just plain degrading and puts the focus the person or person(s) as incapable of doing something. It just targets people in a negative light.
 
kokonut said:
Um, I have not nor have I ever refused or restricted individuals their choices on how they want to be identified as in regards to their vision or hearing loss. No where in my discussions in AD have I done that. Again (see post #60), I am seeing this from a wider perspective. Just as there are people with hearing loss (from mild to profound) do not mind the words "hearing impaired" there are people with a variety and types of vision loss or impairment who are also not perturbed by the words "visually impaired."

Oh, I have interacted with deaf and blind (one was a roommate of mine at Gallaudet), and people at a blind school in Alamogordo, New Mexico. I even had a blind practice partner during Aikido martial arts sessions (he was a black belt in another form of MA but was new to Aikido). And a long, long time ago when I was little we had a blind kid who was a wrestler and we (not just me) wrestled with him. Interesting times back then. Again, I'm not talking about blind people per se but people with a variety and types of vision loss or impairment.

You are missing the point of all this, Jillio. If there are deaf or hh people who do not mind the words "hearing impaired" then there are certainly people with vision problems who also do not mind the words "visually impaired" to describe their vision condition. Hence, a step back looking at the wider picture just as I have done so with "hearing impaired." Unless you are categorically suggesting that ALL blind people or people with vision problems will in fact object to the words "visually impaired"?? That's what it sounds like to me.

Now, again, once more, please stop with this continuing "character assassination" by making implied but unfounded suggestions that have no bearing on who I am or the things I have done (or not).

Just as Deaf people would object to the words "hearing impaired" but not necessarily deaf and hard of hearing people. The same idea is applied to those with a variety of vision loss or impairment who would also not object to the words "visually impaired." Understand now?


Sheesh!
Click to expand...
The word, "impaired" needs to be eliminated when describing people...it is just plain degrading and puts the focus the person or person(s) as incapable of doing something. It just puts people in a negative light.
 
shel90 said:
The word, "impaired" needs to be eliminated when describing people...it is just plain degrading and puts the focus the person or person(s) as incapable of doing something. It just puts people in a negative light.
Click to expand...

That is true as far as most deaf people like us see it. At least that's the general opinion I have heard all my life. However, I find it interesting that some who are hearing find the word "deaf" more scary and more incapable than "hearing impaired." It's all about everyone's comfort level and beliefs. I usually refer to myself as deaf as that is what I really am, but in certain situations, such as a job interview, etc., I find that the phrase "hearing impaired" actually goes over better. Weird, huh?
 
Back
Top