It it really the deaf/Deaf community?

Byrdie714 said:
Ahh..... an individual that answers a question with a question. :roll:

Interesting that you mentioned the CI quote as I recalled--no one could answer that question.

Nevertheless--we are talking about the term of using, 'hearing impaired' vs 'Deaf', not using CI's as that is a separate category. Please stay on topic--thank you very much.

Apparently it seems that you are focusing on the disability of the individual and not looking at the 'whole person'.

The 'whole person' approach looks at the individual and what their contributions are to society, happiness, mental well being, etc, etc. The disability of the 'whole person' is a small thing and not a big deal.

For an individual that looks at 'disability' and nothing but disability is limiting themselves and the individual which is sad, including the terminology.
Click to expand...


:gpost: and I agree.
 
Guys. I am just gonna let go of this thread. I stand by what I said was correct because it was within the context of my experience. We can agree to disagree, but I feel this thread is going towards a biased direction. I know the beef certain members of the deaf community feel about the term hearing impaired, but let's not forget that each deaf person is different and not in the group that shel or jillio seems to be in. As Shel mentioned a "goal?" Whose goal is it? I am deaf, "hello?" Let's not forget that each deaf individual will feel and view differently. It's only a group of people with the same beliefs that will have a goal. It's not every deaf/hard of hearing/hearing impaired in one goal.

Thank you for listening, but you may carry on with your thread as you like.
 
ClearSky said:
How is deaf or hard of hearing focusing on YOU the person and not the disability? Anyone knows you can't hear.

And Birdye714, you stand out. Why? Oh, I remember:

I

I saw this as bringing more negative labels towards implanting CI children. Never saw you write why you put RIPS out the CI. Why?
Click to expand...

U complain about Jillo and I picking on you but arent u doing the same thing to Birdye? :roll:
 
Daredevel7 said:
Alright, I'll try to get us back on topic.

Let's start with the obvious:
If a hearing parent chooses either Oralism or CI for their deaf child, they get more negative comments than a hearing parent who chooses to put a child in a deaf school (would it even matter what type of deaf school as long they use some visual language?)

Would most people agree with this?
Click to expand...

I think most deaf people agree that having both is the best parents can give to their deaf children. Both world, both languages, and etc.

Of course, there will be some who will say negative things about implanting young children because many people believe that it should be a personal choice. My view is that it is not my business nor place to form an opinion since these are not my children because I am more concerned with language and socio-emotional development.
 
ClearSky said:
Oh my, I really can't believe Shel and Jillio. Wow, the term hearing impaired being used as if it's some kind of slur like those in the African American Community. Oh my... WOW, you do "understand." Hearing Impaired has nothing to do with being in the past. In fact, it is still used today, and it is not offensive. I have read about this, and this is term is used as a general statement to describe deaf and hard of hearing the same. It's not intended to put people down as you seem to show with your examples.

Jillio, you can go on to satisfy what you don't like, but I stand behind what I said was VERY appropriate. It's MY experience, and the term "Hearing Imaired" seems to fit right. It makes SENSE to me, and if you don't agree. I truly don't care. It's not your experience or your business to tell me what terms I should use. If it's MY STORY, and that was the appropriate term as I feel is right, I will use it because I feel it is appropriate.

You can go on, but I don't agree with you. So, we can agree to disagree. I just won't let stand by you picking on me for that and making it a big deal. Others here get the point, so I don't need to explain more. I feel it's truly to satisfy your goal as well as a few others. I was picked on this for a silly reason other than to satisfy your biased goals.

I stand by what I said is very appropriate. We can agree to disagree.

I am a deaf person technically by my hearing loss, and you talking to me about a political correct term from a hearing person's point of view is a bit of an insult. Correcting me on a term?! I don't care what deaf, hard of hearing, hearing impaired tell you or what research you have done, I don't expect you to know better than I.
Click to expand...

Firstly, please understand that I have upheld your right to apply the term to yourself. I have simply said that you should not use it to apply to others, especially when others find it offensive. And yes, it is the same thing as calling an African American "colored." The person using the term no doubt is being polite, but the person being referred to finds it offensive.

You are not being picked on. You are simply being asked not to use a term to refer to others that do find it offensive.
 
ClearSky said:
Whose goal is it? I am deaf just like you, remember? I am not annoyed by that term. Shel, you're wrong about "change in attitudes and views." I didn't use Hearing Impaired as a negative view. It was never used as a negative term. Who's goal are you talking about?
Click to expand...

That is the whole point. It is never used as a negative term, but it is perceived as a negative term by many of those being described by it. If you know you are using a term that another would find insulting, why continue to use it, even after having been informed that it is found to be offensive by many?
 
ClearSky said:
How is deaf or hard of hearing focusing on YOU the person and not the disability? Anyone knows you can't hear.

And Birdye714, you stand out. Why? Oh, I remember:

I

I saw this as bringing more negative labels towards implanting CI children. Never saw you write why you put RIPS out the CI. Why?
Click to expand...

Do not engage in inflaming other members and making accusations of "You said, you did" in this thread.
 
shel90 said:
I think most deaf people agree that having both is the best parents can give to their deaf children. Both world, both languages, and etc.

Of course, there will be some who will say negative things about implanting young children because many people believe that it should be a personal choice. My view is that it is not my business nor place to form an opinion since these are not my children because I am more concerned with language and socio-emotional development.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Perhaps we should not categorize Oralism and CI in the same sentence.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. Perhaps we should not categorize Oralism and CI in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

CIs equate oralism is the view that will get negative comments from the Deaf community.

CIs equate both ASL and oralism is the view that will not get as much negative comments from the Deaf community.

ASL equates no CI is the view that will probably get a lot of negative commetns from the medical industry and hearing people who view deafness from a pathological perspective.

ASL equates both CI and oralism is the view that will probably not get as much negative comments from the medical industry and hearing people.


Which view do you adopt?

I view CIs and non-CI equate both ASL and oralism.

Damn, here we go again with CIs!
 
jillio said:
Agreed. Perhaps we should not categorize Oralism and CI in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

I meant that those 2 issues seem to stand out as the "hot buttons" between the deaf community and hearing parents. It can be just one or both that generate negativity towards the hearing parents.

Let me ask this question: Is most of the deaf community truly advocating for both worlds?

If a hearing parent says that s/he will enroll his/her child in oral only classes, will the deaf community respond with something like "Maybe you should also try to teach him ASL too, it gives them opportunities from BOTH worlds."?

How about if the parent decides to enroll the child in ASL only school? Would the deaf community respond with something like "Maybe you should make sure that the child is able to also learn to successfully communicate with the hearing world, maybe send him/her to a summer camp with hearing kids"?

Maybe I'm wrong but the latter doesn't seem to happen a lot.
 
shel90 said:
CIs equate oralism is the view that will get negative comments from the Deaf community.

CIs equate both ASL and oralism is the view that will not get as much negative comments from the Deaf community.

ASL equates no CI is the view that will probably get a lot of negative commetns from the medical industry and hearing people who view deafness from a pathological perspective.

ASL equates both CI and oralism is the view that will probably not get as much negative comments from the medical industry and hearing people.


Which view do you adopt?

I view CIs and non-CI equate both ASL and oralism.

Damn, here we go again with CIs!
Click to expand...

That may be true but they are different topics.......
 
shel90 said:
CIs equate oralism is the view that will get negative comments from the Deaf community.

CIs equate both ASL and oralism is the view that will not get as much negative comments from the Deaf community.

ASL equates no CI is the view that will probably get a lot of negative commetns from the medical industry and hearing people who view deafness from a pathological perspective.

ASL equates both CI and oralism is the view that will probably not get as much negative comments from the medical industry and hearing people.


Which view do you adopt?

I view CIs and non-CI equate both ASL and oralism.

Damn, here we go again with CIs!
Click to expand...

And I would agree with your view.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I meant that those 2 issues seem to stand out as the "hot buttons" between the deaf community and hearing parents. It can be just one or both that generate negativity towards the hearing parents.

Let me ask this question: Is most of the deaf community truly advocating for both worlds?

If a hearing parent says that s/he will enroll his/her child in oral only classes, will the deaf community respond with something like "Maybe you should also try to teach him ASL too, it gives them opportunities from BOTH worlds."?

How about if the parent decides to enroll the child in ASL only school? Would the deaf community respond with something like "Maybe you should make sure that the child is able to also learn to successfully communicate with the hearing world, maybe send him/her to a summer camp with hearing kids"?

Maybe I'm wrong but the latter doesn't seem to happen a lot.
Click to expand...

Many of us have made suggestions just like that to parents on this board, and are accused of attempting to tell parents how to raise their child or of having some sort of hidden agenda towards the use of ASL. When I advocate for a student in the elementary or high school grades, I make the same statements. I know many deaf individuals who will tell a hearing parent that it is wonderful that they are implanting their child, but recommend that the parent also opt for visual communication as well as speech therapy, particularly in educational situations. Those statements are the ones that hearing parents seem to find so objectionable, based on the defensive reaction that most of us get from them.
 
jillio said:
Many of us have made suggestions just like that to parents on this board, and are accused of attempting to tell parents how to raise their child or of having some sort of hidden agenda towards the use of ASL. When I advocate for a student in the elementary or high school grades, I make the same statements. I know many deaf individuals who will tell a hearing parent that it is wonderful that they are implanting their child, but recommend that the parent also opt for visual communication as well as speech therapy, particularly in educational situations. Those statements are the ones that hearing parents seem to find so objectionable, based on the defensive reaction that most of us get from them.
Click to expand...


Maybe it is because the medical community tells them that in order for their children to get CIs, they must drop ASL or not to place them in educational programs where signing is used?
 
Daredevel7 said:
I meant that those 2 issues seem to stand out as the "hot buttons" between the deaf community and hearing parents. It can be just one or both that generate negativity towards the hearing parents.

Let me ask this question: Is most of the deaf community truly advocating for both worlds?

If a hearing parent says that s/he will enroll his/her child in oral only classes, will the deaf community respond with something like "Maybe you should also try to teach him ASL too, it gives them opportunities from BOTH worlds."?

How about if the parent decides to enroll the child in ASL only school? Would the deaf community respond with something like "Maybe you should make sure that the child is able to also learn to successfully communicate with the hearing world, maybe send him/her to a summer camp with hearing kids"?

Maybe I'm wrong but the latter doesn't seem to happen a lot.
Click to expand...


Actually, it does happen more often than not. But even comments recommending both are somehow twisted to be anti-CI and met with defensiveness and accusation.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I meant that those 2 issues seem to stand out as the "hot buttons" between the deaf community and hearing parents. It can be just one or both that generate negativity towards the hearing parents.

Let me ask this question: Is most of the deaf community truly advocating for both worlds?

If a hearing parent says that s/he will enroll his/her child in oral only classes, will the deaf community respond with something like "Maybe you should also try to teach him ASL too, it gives them opportunities from BOTH worlds."?

How about if the parent decides to enroll the child in ASL only school? Would the deaf community respond with something like "Maybe you should make sure that the child is able to also learn to successfully communicate with the hearing world, maybe send him/her to a summer camp with hearing kids"?

Maybe I'm wrong but the latter doesn't seem to happen a lot.
Click to expand...

The latter doesn't happen a lot because a deaf child can't escape the hearing world. There are hearing cousins, hearing neighborhood kids, hearing classmates if mainstreamed.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Interesting that you mentioned the CI quote as I recalled--no one could answer that question.
Click to expand...

I answered that freaking question TWICE!!!!!!

Maybe you can pay attention to the answer this time:

THERE IS NO WAY TO RIP OUT THE CI! The internal piece is completly inside the body and the external part is only the speech processor. It is the equivilant of a hearing aid. It wouldn't hurt or do damage.
 
faire_jour said:
I answered that freaking question TWICE!!!!!!

Maybe you can pay attention to the answer this time:

THERE IS NO WAY TO RIP OUT THE CI! The internal piece is completly inside the body and the external part is only the speech processor. It is the equivilant of a hearing aid. It wouldn't hurt or do damage.
Click to expand...

That you know of....
 
Back
Top