The Deaf Community

GrendelQ said:
Alley Cat, I believe this too -- I don't see that accepting, considering, or even choosing a CI is in any way a repudiation to being Deaf, of using ASL, of identifying as deaf.

[update: just want to clarify the "I believe this too" part in that I'm agreeing with you, AlleyCat]
Click to expand...

Thank you, GrendelQ.

I didn't think either that getting a CI would change who I am as a deaf person. It's something I can still explore someday again if things change.
 
Last edited:
faire_jour said:
He is saying that it is better to live in the hearing world and "swim" rather than insist that every person learn ASL (or use an interpreter) and "come to you".
Click to expand...

Whatever percentage you may use, in all fairness - Please read post #287.
 
BecLak said:
Whatever percentage you may use, in all fairness - Please read post #287.
Click to expand...

The person making the statement is deaf himself. He is not an outsider making decisions for deaf people, his opinion comes from having lived it, every day of his life.

Just because his opinion is different from yours does not make his experience less valid.
 
I wasn't commenting on HHIssues' post, but yours. It is not about percentage it is about the overbalance of a strong bias in accomodating the hearing world. It is only fair that the accomodating should be more balanced than biased, and equal respect shown for the individual's personal preferrances.
 
BecLak said:
I wasn't commenting on HHIssues' post, but yours. It is not about percentage it is about the overbalance of a strong bias in accomodating the hearing world. It is only fair that the accomodating should be more balanced than biased, and equal respect shown for the individual's personal preferrances.
Click to expand...

I am not expressing my opinion, I am explaining his comment.
 
faire_jour said:
I am not expressing my opinion, I am explaining his comment.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that we are dumb, not understanding his comments? It is not for you to explain when HHissues is commenting his reason for explanation which several of us do not exactly understand his point. We are waiting for his reply, not you. :roll:
 
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that a lot of deaf and frequent AD-ers here, who "promote" a full toolbox approach, frequently attack two parents who are ACTUALLY doing it?

I know I know, it's not that simple. "There's a different reason for it." "They started it!" blah blah blah.

Still... I find it amusing.

And honestly.... looking at the big picture.... don't you (Deaf) think it does more bad than good?
 
Daredevel7 said:
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that a lot of deaf and frequent AD-ers here, who "promote" a full toolbox approach, frequently attack two parents who are ACTUALLY doing it?

I know I know, it's not that simple. "There's a different reason for it." "They started it!" blah blah blah.

Still... I find it amusing.

And honestly.... looking at the big picture.... don't you (Deaf) think it does more bad than good?
Click to expand...
One is not ACTUALLY doing it for the long term.. :)
 
posts from hell said:
One is not ACTUALLY doing it for the long term.. :)
Click to expand...

??? That still doesn't explain the other one and FJ has been attacked even BEFORE she started talking about the AVT stuff recently. Although I haven't been on AD very long and frequent enough to know this for sure. But....

I have an inkling that if ANY parent tries to employ SOME oral training/speech training/AVT/any characteristic of oral approach, they will get attacked/criticized, even if they teach them ASL primarily.

I suspect because they are doing it out of emotions from their speech therapy during childhood or subconsciously defending someone they know who is intelligent but has poor speech skills.

Do you think all this criticism is doing more good than bad in the long run for deaf children today?

Also, I wanted to ask in general: I've seen lots of people talk in AD about primary ASL users who speak well, but NEVER how they obtained their speech skills. Why?
 
posts from hell said:
One is not ACTUALLY doing it for the long term.. :)
Click to expand...

Hope you aren't talking about me...I can't speak to Grendel's plans for the future, but we use ASL everyday and assume that after Miss Kat develops fluency in her second language she will either move back to the bi-bi school or be mainstreamed with an interpreter, whichever she prefers.

We chose to emphasis one language at a time. First was ASL, and then once she obtained fluency in that language, we added the second language.
 
;) Not gonna divulge just yet.

I'll sit down here on my tractor waiting, eating a sandwich... The bushes shall be cleared one day.
 
Why there has been a firm reaction to FJ's comments and some other hearing people is because there is a strong emphasis implied in their comments that 'hearing' is best and that we should conform to the hearing world with disregard for who we actually are. Let me draw your attention once again to the topic of the thread.

In my own experience: Born severely deaf, I was raised oral, however, I support the total communication approach if it works for you, but for the most part, hearing professionals have not presented the option of Sign Language as the primary language. That is something I regret now as an adult, with everything I went through in my growing years. If I had the option given to me to learn and use Sign Language as a child, I would have saved myself a lot of heartache. Even now, learning Sign Language in my later years, I have found solace in that. I am immersed in the hearing world, I am the only one deaf in my family, my husband and children are all hearing. I still speak when I need to, but now I am glad I have the option not to. The preferrances of the deaf should be respected equally. If one goes Total Communication that is their choice, if one goes sign language only - their choice, if one is oral - again their choice. But those who are hearing should not dictate how we communicate nor should they imply that a total communication or oral approach is the way to 'fix' the 'problem'. Many of us don't see it as a 'problem' nor do we feel we need 'fixing' and this is what needs to be respected.
 
Daredevel7 said:
??? That still doesn't explain the other one and FJ has been attacked even BEFORE she started talking about the AVT stuff recently. Although I haven't been on AD very long and frequent enough to know this for sure. But....

I have an inkling that if ANY parent tries to employ SOME oral training/speech training/AVT/any characteristic of oral approach, they will get attacked/criticized, even if they teach them ASL primarily.

I suspect because they are doing it out of emotions from their speech therapy during childhood or subconsciously defending someone they know who is intelligent but has poor speech skills.

Do you think all this criticism is doing more good than bad in the long run for deaf children today?

Also, I wanted to ask in general: I've seen lots of people talk in AD about primary ASL users who speak well, but NEVER how they obtained their speech skills. Why?
Click to expand...
Post 318, THAT.

Because people who knows and having experienced both and don't exactly suggest you to do the oral route. :) Why should they tell you how to do it?

There is an overwhelming majority of these people. The people who enjoy being oral and not using sign language are in the small majority.

It's also funny when these people (the oral ones) go against the grain both ways :) (in response to your comment that its amusing we are "attacking" the parents)

I go against the grain one way. :)
 
Back
Top