See this. It s a perfect example!

[shel90]

So then an oralist is someone who advocates an oral only approach for all children?

Someone who advocates the use of sign only is what then, a manualist?

I dont know. Just want ASL included in all deaf children's language development years so nobody is put at risk for language delays that's all.

 

[Sweetmind]

I don't know what you mean.

First of all, I like to make it correct about your child who is Deaf son as well as my apologizies. I wasnt even pay attention ur picture icon and many other things around me on the forum here cuz it was too much for my Deaf eyes. That makes it difficult for me to read a book if you mind.

I expected you said this because many strangers that we should not trust completely as well as they lied too much about us deafies and our Deaf community all along that you are listening to a STRANGER. It reminds me of a child who are very frigid of a stranger that you are allowed them to manipulate you and your child who is very innocent. That makes me wonder!

Thanks!
Sweetmind

 

[neecy]

What does something a stranger may have said about deafness have to do with the subject, or with Drew's Dad's son?

 

[Sweetmind]

Jillo and I are promoting the use of ASL along with oral language. We are not telling people to put all deaf children in the "ASL only" cage.

We are meeting halfway so why dont the oralists meet halfway too? Just wondering.

I think it s so funny for people who thinks it s ASL only.. I guess you are not really interested to understand why I did this. I guess you dont get the level of understandings yet. What a pity!

Shel90 - Of course we tried and tried to educate for more than 100 years in the past of our Deaf History. I finally realized it it s none of their concern to force Deaf children to speak and hear in the classroom while other Deaf children wants to learn more than having to deal with their slow down because of oral method rules must be involved. I feel it should eliminated the oral method out of the classroom while Deaf or Hearing teachers could make their own choice not to use their voices cuz SIGNED ENGLISH language is the most important for us to READ and WRITE while we have a real visual langauge in ASL that goes along with BI BI languages not by our Deaf ears with devices. NO wonder they dont want a Real Deaf teacher to be with our Deaf children s best interest. How 258! Go ask Mr. Frank Turk that you will get the perfect answer from him.

What does it have to do with oral method in our classroom that messed up in our learning process in our Deaf Education that is already showing the true color nowadays? That s what SpeechReading or Speech Therapy are for that they have a private class for it and should be done without a regular classroom in any schools.

Of course Speech Therapy or Speechreading lessons are our survival of oral kits that we believe in but NOT IN THE REGULAR classrooms. So be it!
Of course most of us are mute because we are signing in ASL in many ways that is very natural for Deaf children so therefore it goes for Hearing children too. So therefore we are not excatly mute because our lips are making the movement without voice to be involved as well.

Many thanks!

Sweetmind

 

[Sweetmind]

I don't know what you are talking about. Besides what would you care about residual hearing? Please post what it is I have said to refresh my memory.

Since you're into making unprovable, out of thin air statements about others, maybe it's time I tell the world how Nutty got you pregnant?

Sure thing, I will do when I get a chance to find it. Ha ha Boy I surely do miss Nutty a lot more than he knew. Thanks for a good laugh. Too bad, I never done with Nutty.

 

[Sweetmind]

Thank you so much for that translation I really appreciate it

Sorry for the delay to give it out the article. Here you go!

Deaf Reality 's types complain of an “oralist” culture that discriminates against d/Deaf people who use sign language. “Oralism” oppresses the deaf, now you see this article.

And Mind you, Audiofuzzy!


Disturbing trend: Designer children designed to be disabled

Disturbing trend: Designer children designed to be disabled
Writer warns of these latest developments - "things must change or we shall perish"

By Joseph A. D'Agostino
Population Research Insititute

FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, April 2, 2007 (POP.org/LifeSiteNews.com) - For a number of years now, a great deal of discussion has taken place among scientists and in the popular media about the genetic engineering of children. Will it soon be possible, for prices widely affordable at least to the upper-middle class, to guarantee that children have a high IQ, or excellent athletic ability, or be over 6 feet tall, or have blond hair and blue eyes? Is it right to commodify children in this way, and have parents choosing options as they do with cars? And wouldn’t it be boring to live in a world someday where almost everyone is extremely intelligent and beautiful? Variety, or even the politically correct term “diversity,” is the spice of life.

But not everyone wants what seemed to be the three genetic engineering options: refrain and let nature take her course, attempt to repair genetic diseases but otherwise let well enough alone, or select positive qualities in children. There are parents who are deliberately ensuring that their children are born with disabilities, from deafness to dwarfism. A fourth option—inflicting permanent disabling conditions on children—is now being used.

For some years now, some deaf parents have refused to allow their deaf children to receive cochlear implants that would enable them to hear. The devices must often be implanted when children are very young in order to work, so such parents condemn their children to a lifetime of deafness when they could have been able to hear.

Some dwarf couples are even using in-vitro fertilization to create embryos in the lab, then killing the normal ones and implanting the ones with the dwarfness gene to ensure having a dwarf child .

The standard Marxist-Frankfurt School arguments are used to justify such acts by Deaf Life magazine and other radical organizations representing some disabled people. They argue that deaf folks, dwarfs, and others aren’t disabled at all, just different. Deaf Life types complain of an “oralist” culture that discriminates against deaf people who use sign language. “Oralism” oppresses the deaf, you see, just as racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other isms ad nauseam oppress others.

In a Jan. 21, 2007 story, the Associated Press reported that, of American clinics it surveyed that perform embryo screening, 3% admit to screening in favor of disabilities. This story contains perhaps the most revealing statement on the question. It was uttered by a dwarf woman angered that anyone would dare suggest that deliberating inflicting permanent suffering on children is bad:

“Cara Reynolds of Collingswood, N.J., who considered embryo screening but now plans to adopt a dwarf baby, is outraged by the criticism. ‘You cannot tell me that I cannot have a child who's going to look like me,’ Reynolds said. ‘It's just unbelievably presumptuous and they're playing God.’”

Funny to think that it’s playing God to say it’s wrong to use high-tech techniques to choose certain qualities in children rather than letting nature take her course. Isn’t intervening to choose a major genetic quality in your child much more like playing God?

First abortion, then fetal and embryonic tissue experimentation, and on the anti-child bandwagon goes. Some kill children because they have disabilities, others choose to inflict suffering that only God could possibly have a right to allow. What hate there is in the world.

I will let others comment upon the dark spiritual impulses that must be behind a parent’s decision to do such a thing. But I will ask this: How relativistic can a society become and still be worthy of preserving?

Things must change soon. With such degeneration, and such low birthrates in this anti-child age, things must change or we shall perish. I am banking on the former.

Joseph A. D’Agostino is the outgoing Vice President for Communications at PRI.

Thanks for your reading time..
Sweetmind

 

[jillio]

now that's a quoteworthy material. thank you for this wonderful quote.

You are quite welcome. Nice to see that someone got what I was saying.

 

[jillio]

So then an oralist is someone who advocates an oral only approach for all children?

Someone who advocates the use of sign only is what then, a manualist?

I really don't know anyone who advocates for the use of sign only. That is an absurd concept. Even the Deaf who choice sign as their preferred mode of communication use English in other forms. Only the oralist camp insists on the use of one language only.

 

[highlands]

...
Who on this forum has said that all children should be raised oral only?

yes , I don't remember anyone on this forum who wants oral only way .

 

[shel90]

yes , I don't remember anyone on this forum who wants oral only way .

This is in reference to oral-only programs for deaf education. Many support it and I am against it cuz I see too many children getting deprived of language and then getting sent to the deaf schools several years delayed. Education is very critical and it is critical that all deaf/hh do not miss out crucial information especially in language development.

For people who are older or in social situation, their decision to be oral-only or to use ASL.

I am always talking about the education of the children, not personal lives of people.

 

[highlands]

This is in reference to oral-only programs for deaf education. Many support it and I am against it cuz I see too many children getting deprived of language and then getting sent to the deaf schools several years delayed. Education is very critical and it is critical that all deaf/hh do not miss out crucial information especially in language development.

For people who are older or in social situation, their decision to be oral-only or to use ASL.

I am always talking about the education of the children, not personal lives of people.

I am against oral only way since it would make deaf children exhausted for nothing. They may use their energy on several topics rather than losing all of their energies on trying to understand speech... waste of time.

 

[shel90]

I am against oral only way since it would make deaf children exhausted for nothing. They may use their energy on several topics rather than losing all of their energies on trying to understand speech... waste of time.

That too..

I understand that for the families that it is hard for them to find the time to learn ASL and become fluent in such a short time so I always thought it would be perfect if the family be the spoken language model for the children (those who benefit from their CIs) and the schools that have deaf programs use sign to teach new concepts or for langauage development and use spoken language on an one-on-one basis to review the concept being taught. That is what my school does for those who get auditory benefit and it seems to be working great so far.

If the child has no auditory benefit then yes, it is very critical for the parents to learn ASL to ensure the child receives full access to language at home. If the child has good benefit from the CIs, then can pratice listening and speaking with family members instead of speech classes which take time away from education.

 

[highlands]

That too..

I understand that for the families that it is hard for them to find the time to learn ASL and become fluent in such a short time so I always thought it would be perfect if the family be the spoken language model for the children (those who benefit from their CIs) and the schools that have deaf programs use sign to teach new concepts or for langauage development and use spoken language on an one-on-one basis to review the concept being taught. That is what my school does for those who get auditory benefit and it seems to be working great so far.

If the child has no auditory benefit then yes, it is very critical for the parents to learn ASL to ensure the child receives full access to language at home. If the child has good benefit from the CIs, then can pratice listening and speaking with family members instead of speech classes which take time away from education.

Good points.. I now see better what your opinion is . . adjusting education programme according to the conditions children lives in.. maximizing the child's learning success

 

[shel90]

Good points.. I now see better what your opinion is . . adjusting education programme according to on the conditions children lives in.. maximizing the child's learning success

Exactly..I am sooo tired of seeing new older students coming to our school with a language level of a 3 or 4 year old when it was uneccessary since they had no cognitive deficents. It is a shame..

 

[loml]

understand that for the families that it is hard for them to find the time to learn ASL and become fluent in such a short time so I always thought it would be perfect if the family be the spoken language model

This is a scenario that Cued Speech could be a significant support. If the child aqauired language through the CS system, they could learn ASL from a native user (deaf teacher) and continue learing English via CS for reading and writing.

 

[shel90]

This is a scenario that Cued Speech could have a significant impact.

Yea, why not at the home if the child still struggles with oral language. If the family can learn ASL, would be great too!

I know of this family who has quads and one is deaf and has very minimal oral skills and cant not understand spoken language. The mother wants so badly to learn ASL for her daughter but she is a single mom of quads and is burnt out. Ouch!

 

[Sweetmind]

This is a scenario that Cued Speech could be a significant support. If the child aqauired language through the CS system, they could learn ASL from a native user (deaf teacher) and continue learing English via CS for reading and writing.

OUT OF THE QUESTION if you mind loml .. I am totally lost respect in you.

Stop thinking of yourself as a Hearing person with no common sense who think they must to hear and speak.

 

[Sweetmind]

OMG, YES jillo! Trust me, even I've gotten my share of Sweetmind abuse. She can be really extreme. I think part of it is that she does not have good reading comprehension in some areas, and so may misunderstand what someone means.
Sweetmind, many of us, including many younger folks and many oral sucesses, agree with you on some things. We've even experianced a lot of the same things you might have. But you ARE extreme. Calling every and anyone who disagrees with you an "audist" or an oralist is not going to win you any friends.
It's good to be anti-oral only, but don't call people oralists b/c they think that oral skills in addition to Sign (and any other tools) is a good idea.
That position is just as bad as the old school oralists who totally and completely demonized Sign. Be more moderate. We've reconized that you didn't do too well with oral only.............that's no reason to demonize oral skills!

OH boy what a poor view of Sweetmind that she looked in the wrong way! Bingo, I was right what I am seeing in her that she doesnt have the level of understanding as far as I can see very well. Thank you for response your own negative thinking about me for a very wrong reason. I am far from it, whatever you think.

Why dont you back off , Miss Know it all! You are nothing as well.

This is a real audist attitude the way you approached me as well. I find this is real odd and strange that s coming from you. I guess you are so confused what is Audism all about?


So long!
Sweetmind

 

[highlands]

Care to explain what the meaning of 'Audism' is ?

 

[Gamer12]

Exactly!!!, so stop being so fixated on this subject.
There is also brain that when stimulated early and in the right way will achieve its best.
Do not keep the deaf child in "ASL only" cage because it enforces growth limit the same way as keeping the child in hearing world only.

Fuzzy

i found it intriguing how you used the words. i'm not sure if you intentionally choose these words or choosing these words carefully. if you aren't sure what i mean. well, why not use this sentence -- "the same way as keeping the child in oralism, cued speech and no-sign world only"? it also enforces growth limit and accumulating frustration.

or is this another fine example of contradictory and hypocrisy from asl-hating people?

i've been befuddled by this asl-hating movement. the teaching and encouraging of signing -- asl and likes -- in hearing world is rapidly growing. many hearing parents are promoting and maintaining the importance of signing in raising their children, deaf or hearing, to tackle the advantage of the stage of early language development. the studies and researches support it. so what's up with "oralism, cued speech and no-sign only" movement?