Is deafness a disability?

Status
Not open for further replies.
for the last time, you the fuzzy-brained, Im actually going to block you, because you really have wasted nothing between your fuzzy ears.
 
actually, I have been thinking about this the other day,
as in your quote;
If you are born-deaf, deafness may not be a disability to you. You have adapted to the world and you dont "know" what you are missing. But to be late deafened that is most definitely a disability.

well its not the ignorance is bliss, (in fact i disagree with that saying!)
being unaware is actually more harmful because you are liable to be unaware of oppression!!!
that has to change, and to do this, we need to be more conscious of what's going on around us, and whats really going on from those who 'control' us...indeed we are being controlled, hence why we are disabled...as much as the Cultural model of Deafness denies this, there is a limit on what the cultural arguement can go, and to go further we need to look and learn from Disabled people who are particularly involved in the DRM....
that then we can really not only voice and take back control of our culture but also to take back our rights from those who robs it of us - the dis-abling organisations (British spelling here) that imposed so much bullshit rules on us.
 
Grummer said:
WHAT?!

youre the one whos denying the the pains that Deaf people endures,
Click to expand...

sigh..
I just agreed there is two way to being disabled -
one- to have some kind of disability (as you say -IMPAIRMENT)
two - being limited and or/ excluded by able society due to aforesaid disability (impairment)

So how in the Pete's name I am "denying the pains of ....." ??

Fuzzy
 
Anybody else got that scene from Monty Python running through their heads....

King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Share this quote
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
Share this quote
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
Share this quote
Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?



no? Okay maybe it was just me then.
 
Grummer said:
no, disabled is WRONG , even in the dictionary,

disability has Nothing to do with the body, it has everything to do with oppression, as thus dis=abled from function as a 100% citizen in society, as in 'held back'...
Click to expand...


There is no 'definition' of 'Deaf' with a capital D to signify culture either. Also no reference to 'Audism' in the UK versions (my spell checker which is incidentally American refuses to accept it too). Most is accepted as colloquial, whether they get official acceptance depends on usage over a long time. Disability is not to do with repression , I think you are confusing it with the other term, discrimination, but you aren't the only one. (We really do have an obsessions with D don't we !).

Discrimination disables, but is not the sole or primary cause of the disablement. You can be completely free of repression but still disabled by loss.... because THAT prevents access. Outside supportive areas is where you get the real message.
 
Passivist said:
There is no 'definition' of 'Deaf' with a capital D to signify culture either. Also no reference to 'Audism' in the UK versions (my spell checker which is incidentally American refuses to accept it too). Most is accepted as colloquial, whether they get official acceptance depends on usage over a long time. Disability is not to do with repression , I think you are confusing it with the other term, discrimination, but you aren't the only one. (We really do have an obsessions with D don't we !).

Discrimination disables, but is not the sole or primary cause of the disablement. You can be completely free of repression but still disabled by loss.... because THAT prevents access. Outside supportive areas is where you get the real message.
Click to expand...
Did you read this anywhere, or are you making up things as it fit you? What Grummer says is basic knowledge in sociology. What you say makes little sense in scholarly discourses. I can imagine that some people feel uneasy about the idea that deaf people aren't disabled, because it would mean that their, and your, worldview suddenly appears constructed and fragile(again, basic sociology).
 
Passivist said:
There is no 'definition' of 'Deaf' with a capital D to signify culture either. Also no reference to 'Audism' in the UK versions (my spell checker which is incidentally American refuses to accept it too). Most is accepted as colloquial, whether they get official acceptance depends on usage over a long time. Disability is not to do with repression , I think you are confusing it with the other term, discrimination, but you aren't the only one. (We really do have an obsessions with D don't we !).

Discrimination disables, but is not the sole or primary cause of the disablement. You can be completely free of repression but still disabled by loss.... because THAT prevents access. Outside supportive areas is where you get the real message.
Click to expand...

No im not confused with discrimination and disability not one bit.

discrimination is an act of deliberate exclusion (or inclusion in some cases) whereas disabiliy is a social phenomena with occurs to carry out by in a way that is 'informed' usually unconsciously by an institution or individuals who follows a normative ideological framework

discrimination is now illegal in more cases....whereas disability is a 'social problem' much in the same way as racial discrimination is now illegal, whereas racism as a social problem still exists , and most people know the difference between racism and racial discrimination, yet often the two occurs approximately the same time, but they are two different things, like one is the 'idea' the other is the 'act'...kind off
 
Grummer said:
No im not confused with discrimination and disability not one bit.

discrimination is an act of deliberate exclusion (or inclusion in some cases) whereas disabiliy is a social phenomena with occurs to carry out by in a way that is 'informed' usually unconsciously by an institution or individuals who follows a normative ideological framework

discrimination is now illegal in more cases....whereas disability is a 'social problem' much in the same way as racial discrimination is now illegal, whereas racism as a social problem still exists , and most people know the difference between racism and racial discrimination, yet often the two occurs approximately the same time, but they are two different things, like one is the 'idea' the other is the 'act'...kind off
Click to expand...

Still the D versus d versus disability. I don't think there can be any consensus whilst we are all so dogmatic about things, it bodes badly for any sort of unity of access or purpose. Whatever happened to live and let live ? I think the cultural attitude is wrong in this respect. 9 out of 10 are from hearing families, 82% of ALL with loss acquire it, so its a minority trying to change an majority view of itself.

If a person feels disabled by loss it matter nothing what others think. It's as valid a view as cultural deaf insisting 'society' disabled them. It remains to be seen if 'Deaf' do get universal acceptance their lives would change much at all. I cannot see 'deaf' or 'Deaf' ever agreeing on this. which is OK so long as mutual acceptances of the view is respected, but it isn't. Some areas of signing community have said they don't WANT to get 'out there' they are happy where they are, so what price access ?

terminological warfare is pointless. NO matter who instigates it.
 
Passivist said:
Still the D versus d versus disability. I don't think there can be any consensus whilst we are all so dogmatic about things, it bodes badly for any sort of unity of access or purpose. Whatever happened to live and let live ? I think the cultural attitude is wrong in this respect. 9 out of 10 are from hearing families, 82% of ALL with loss acquire it, so its a minority trying to change an majority view of itself.

If a person feels disabled by loss it matter nothing what others think. It's as valid a view as cultural deaf insisting 'society' disabled them. It remains to be seen if 'Deaf' do get universal acceptance their lives would change much at all. I cannot see 'deaf' or 'Deaf' ever agreeing on this. which is OK so long as mutual acceptances of the view is respected, but it isn't. Some areas of signing community have said they don't WANT to get 'out there' they are happy where they are, so what price access ?

terminological warfare is pointless. NO matter who instigates it.
Click to expand...

still along way to go yet,
i , for one thinks Deaf people should look at themselves and re-consider the meaning of Pride, its too over hyped...and it gains nothing to counter the reality of being disabled...
I also think we all should learn what IS hearing culture so it provides a balance of what is Deaf culture...

I always types d/Deaf when i say deaf people or Deaf people
I am never happy entirely with "D" in Deaf because there is too much ignorance e over that fence too...
So i do agree with you to some extend, but I also must say its never to stop and drop everything...for i believe there is a way to improve the relations between deaf and Deaf and this would be a shift to greater awareness of what is Disability, what is hearing culture, and ultimately there should be a board of committees comprising of d/Deaf people dedicated to remove the limits of Disability currently imposed on us all in society, as well as to enchance Deaf Culture and Disability culture by incorporating greater awareness and research on Hearing culture and pursue Consumer Rights - in regard to have power to blacklist unethical interpreters and so on. in the last instance i actually mean to take back some powers from associations run by hearings who affliate as Interpreters in Professions, I actually dread they have too much powers over Deaf people - and that arent' right either, - I Bet Deaf culturalists overlook this one!!
 
Passivist said:
Still the D versus d versus disability. I don't think there can be any consensus whilst we are all so dogmatic about things, it bodes badly for any sort of unity of access or purpose. Whatever happened to live and let live ? I think the cultural attitude is wrong in this respect. 9 out of 10 are from hearing families, 82% of ALL with loss acquire it, so its a minority trying to change an majority view of itself.

If a person feels disabled by loss it matter nothing what others think. It's as valid a view as cultural deaf insisting 'society' disabled them. It remains to be seen if 'Deaf' do get universal acceptance their lives would change much at all. I cannot see 'deaf' or 'Deaf' ever agreeing on this. which is OK so long as mutual acceptances of the view is respected, but it isn't. Some areas of signing community have said they don't WANT to get 'out there' they are happy where they are, so what price access ?

terminological warfare is pointless. NO matter who instigates it.
Click to expand...

i dont agree with this, they have a right to BE Deaf, it does NOT affect access, its the hearies who control access do this! they make the rules, and there's no colloboration in there, where it should be <<thats the very thing disabling Deaf people. Oh Deaf people are actually MORE connected with the hearing world than does the hoh/hearing impaired because of the the powers and recognition and surivival, and the life long learning is EXPERIENCED there, where as out isolated in the hearing world, is just plain survival no enjoyment, no socialising - not in the real sense.

also,
terminological warfare is pointless. NO matter who instigates it
thats a moot point, It is very nature of politics, not just merely in the deaf world vs hearing world , it is everywhere. Politics and academy does this.
I, for one, dont wish to pursue into a kind of denial, you can. Deaf politics doesnt make me bitter, (used to) but I'm now far more confident because I actually understands myself better and I can SEE the real beauty of Deaf culture, it is a WAY, THE WAY for Deaf people to Be alive. The biggest Worry of Deaf Politics is that it is a covert operation of genocide, and those are Pro-CI at the top level KNOWS it,... they know exactly what they are doing to subdue Deaf culture to become 'the thing of the past'.

It is morally wrong, full stop.
 
I see nothing wrong with the word "disability" if used in the right context. I have a disability and it's called hearing loss but I'm certainly not a disabled person. Pretty much the same way when I say I have a hearing impairment but I'm not impaired.

But that's just my professional opinion.
 
kokonut said:
I see nothing wrong with the word "disability" if used in the right context. I have a disability and it's called hearing loss but I'm certainly not a disabled person. Pretty much the same way when I say I have a hearing impairment but I'm not impaired.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there is huge difference between having a disability and letting the disability disable.

Fuzzy
 
Grummer said:
it seem they added it in the dictionary as per 'convention' or 'ordinary uneducated language use'
ask this to anyone who is a lecturer, Doctor, or Professor in Disability Studies in Universities _ NOT high school !!....bet you they will tell you im right I guranteee it[/QUOTE

The easiest route is to accept you are not disabled but accept others don't feel the same way ? there is no need for us to confront each other over it. cest la vie what works for you etc... I am disabled by deafness you aren't so, where is the advantage either way ? we are both STILL deaf. I am still going to struggle with it.
Click to expand...
 
Passivist said:
Grummer said:
it seem they added it in the dictionary as per 'convention' or 'ordinary uneducated language use'
ask this to anyone who is a lecturer, Doctor, or Professor in Disability Studies in Universities _ NOT high school !!....bet you they will tell you im right I guranteee it[/QUOTE

The easiest route is to accept you are not disabled but accept others don't feel the same way ? there is no need for us to confront each other over it. cest la vie what works for you etc... I am disabled by deafness you aren't so, where is the advantage either way ? we are both STILL deaf. I am still going to struggle with it.
Click to expand...

You're in Denial, and politically naive
Click to expand...
 
This whole argument truly boggles my mind. People are only disabled because society sees them as disabled?? pfffft some people seem to be making this far to complicated.

Are you able to hear? No? You're unable to hear? Guess what...... that is hearing disablity, because you are unable to hear. You can or can't, it's as simple as that. You are physically unable to hear. nothing philosophical, cultural, or political about it. What you do about it is the important part.

Does being unable to hear mean that should go ahead and live the rest of your life down in your parents basement? Of course not. Being unable to hear does not make a useless person. "Society" does not "hold them back", society doesn't make them disabled. People have choices about what to do with their life, what they choose to do, even if that's sit in the parents basic and spend all day on the internet. But no one, not society, makes them to do it. If someone chooses to let a disablity, any disablity, dictate their life and what they're going to do with it, that is their decision.

A person is a person, they are not their abilties, or their disabilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top