The truth about me, Fuzzy...

Status
Not open for further replies.
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



understanding a few words here and there, or just with familiar speakers or solitary word discrim is different from being able to fully access spoken language.

i'm really surprised by this development. If spoken language is so accessible by even those so very late implanted, why are people fighting against spoken language settings?
Click to expand...

I'm very well aware of the bolded, thank you. It's what all of us who researched CIs learned. And I think you know as well as I do that "understanding a few words here and there" is NOT what I was saying in my previous post.
 
Even I can understand more than just a few words here and there, and be familiar with speakers or solitary word discrimination, and that's JUST with HAs. Do you not think much of CIs then if I can even do that with HAs at a 115 db loss?
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



understanding a few words here and there, or just with familiar speakers or solitary word discrim is different from being able to fully access spoken language.

i'm really surprised by this development. If spoken language is so accessible by even those so very late implanted, why are people fighting against spoken language settings?
Click to expand...

To be clear - we're fighting against strict oralism. And being educated in a spoken language setting due to the fact that perfect hearing is not usually attained with either hearing aids or CIs. Until the hearing world understands that partial hearing means partial education, partial social life and partial integration, we will continue to fight against education taught in a spoken langugage setting.

Not that hard to understand.

As for individuals making their own choices in CIs, there's no argument.
 
we are serious big on cocern on strong on! seriously on big on cocern!

we are waste of time on because told many time on 100 times! she is stubborn!!
 
DeafCaroline said:
Which brings up the age old debate - how can you determine if an infant can pick up and comprehend speech with hearing aids before making the decision to implant them or not?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that reminded me of the post where the mother was told if her child doesn't understand with HA in 3 months, he should be implanted. I posted that it seems too soon for a child who may be delayed. That is a good example where I get the impression that the CI and drs are in a big hurry to implant many deaf babies.
 
AudioFuzzy;

I wonder if you really do understand many of Deaf people's opposition to CI implantments in babies and kids?

I strongly feel that if A.G. Bell had focused on education instead of spoken language, the CI most likely will never make its appearance and we won't be debating on whether to implant the deaf babies or not.

Let me flip that around (I must love flipping things around). Suppose I have a huge power over people. Let's say that I demand that people start talking without voice. Babies were born without ever hearing voices. Upon starting school, if they don't understand the teacher - Whose fault is it? The kids or me because of my method? What would you said if I said that my method is not at fault becuase I can tick off the pros of being able to lipread and ignore the cons?

What if I invent an implant for them to improve their lipreading to solve the problem? Nevermind if they came down with meningitis and died from that. No, that had nothing to do with the implant - no way. (I'm just copying what a pro-CI was saying on that).

I picked the lipreading because they have hands but refused to sign so... I have voice but refuse to voice in this example to show you where the big problem started the whole thing.

Don't you see how the audism in the past influence the present CI?

I remember when the CI came out. The doctor want to implanted on the good ear instead of the bad ear because they believed that the good ear is wired to hear and that the bad ear will not pick things up because it had been without sounds for a long time. Now they will implant on the bad ear. I am hoping they will realized their error of implanting deaf babies/kids and suggest that the babies/kids should be fitted with hearing aids and they can opt for CI after they turn 18.
 
Buffalo said:
AudioFuzzy;

I wonder if you really do understand many of Deaf people's opposition to CI implantments in babies and kids?

I strongly feel that if A.G. Bell had focused on education instead of spoken language, the CI most likely will never make its appearance and we won't be debating on whether to implant the deaf babies or not.

Let me flip that around (I must love flipping things around). Suppose I have a huge power over people. Let's say that I demand that people start talking without voice. Babies were born without ever hearing voices. Upon starting school, if they don't understand the teacher - Whose fault is it? The kids or me because of my method? What would you said if I said that my method is not at fault becuase I can tick off the pros of being able to lipread and ignore the cons?

What if I invent an implant for them to improve their lipreading to solve the problem? Nevermind if they came down with meningitis and died from that. No, that had nothing to do with the implant - no way. (I'm just copying what a pro-CI was saying on that).

I picked the lipreading because they have hands but refused to sign so... I have voice but refuse to voice in this example to show you where the big problem started the whole thing.

Don't you see how the audism in the past influence the present CI?

I remember when the CI came out. The doctor want to implanted on the good ear instead of the bad ear because they believed that the good ear is wired to hear and that the bad ear will not pick things up because it had been without sounds for a long time. Now they will implant on the bad ear. I am hoping they will realized their error of implanting deaf babies/kids and suggest that the babies/kids should be fitted with hearing aids and they can opt for CI after they turn 18.
Click to expand...
I aware it AG bell in strong on CI and deaf, reason just to deaf reason point! that is why on points serious! strong on debated! that is crazy on debates I already on befores on debates on research on alldeaf!
 
Audiofuzzy said:
I see.

Well, may I remind you the whole troubled arose because we were discussing implanting babies.
My argument PRO implanting babies is, more hearing is better because it comes handy, simply handy.

Of course, ASL and access to Deaf Culture is a must.


Does one is less of a person because one decide not to use that option of having more hearing in addition to all what being deaf offers?

Of course not, just like not learning French or Spanish or Chinese in communities where there is a lot French-Spanish-Chinese immigrants living does not make one less of a person.

Other ways will be found to communicate with these non-English speaking immigrants - maybe thru an interpreter, maybe by showing/drawing pictures, or by simply taking person by hand and taking her/him where they should go.
It could work.
It's just that knowing the language personally is practical and handy.
So why not take this option if it's offered at one point?

It is simply a matter of common sense, of comfort to me.
To take and have something additional that can make one's life comfortable.


But thanks to you, Shel, I can begin to understand better now, where does that whole combativeness is coming from.


I didn't realized it can be perceived this way. This is NOT how I mean this.
It's just that since it is my experience, since I was having a lot of hearing and speech, I can attest to how handy it is, how handy HAVING it is.

Do you think Shel, that you can agree that also your upbringing,-
(if we stop talking about how painful it was for now) - comes handy in situations when speech is needed?
do you think, that for example if you are with your very deaf friend you find yourself taking over when there is need for oral communication?

So, if you can't, or don't WANT to use speech or hearing- that's fine.

I am only saying do not deny CI to babies on belief that hearing is unnecessary.
It is may not be absolutely necessary, okay, but it is very handy, useful and valuable thing to have IMO. Is all I say.

Fuzzy
Click to expand...

"More hearing is better" is one of the most audist attitudes and statements around. If you are attempting to convince us that you aren't an audist, you are doing a piss poor job of it!:laugh2:
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



understanding a few words here and there, or just with familiar speakers or solitary word discrim is different from being able to fully access spoken language.

i'm really surprised by this development. If spoken language is so accessible by even those so very late implanted, why are people fighting against spoken language settings?
Click to expand...

If you really need to ask that question, you need to go back to Deafness 101 and start completely over.:P
 
Buffalo said:
Yeah, that reminded me of the post where the mother was told if her child doesn't understand with HA in 3 months, he should be implanted. I posted that it seems too soon for a child who may be delayed. That is a good example where I get the impression that the CI and drs are in a big hurry to implant many deaf babies.
Click to expand...

For heaven's sake, a hearing child doesn't even understand spoken language at 3 months.:roll:
 
AlleyCat said:
We even had a thread a couple years back asking CI users to post what they can hear. The majority were of those who were late-implanted and could still understand spoken language. I understand not all can (I think more don't than do), but there's quite a lot who do. It's on this board somewhere.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if one were to bother to check all the CI research out there, they will find that the group that receives most benefit from CI is the adventitiously deafened who had some speech skills prior to loosing their hearing.
 
jillio said:
"More hearing is better" is one of the most audist attitudes and statements around. If you are attempting to convince us that you aren't an audist, you are doing a piss poor job of it!:laugh2:
Click to expand...

too much on posts on reason strong on pretty she is control on thread posts! I believe it she want to out of control It is very serious!
 
Wirelessly posted

jillio said:
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



understanding a few words here and there, or just with familiar speakers or solitary word discrim is different from being able to fully access spoken language.

i'm really surprised by this development. If spoken language is so accessible by even those so very late implanted, why are people fighting against spoken language settings?
Click to expand...

If you really need to ask that question, you need to go back to Deafness 101 and start completely over.:P
Click to expand...

it was sarcasm because you can't have it both ways. You can't say that spoken language is easily accessable to even the very late implanted, profoundly deaf from birth AND claim it is inaccessable and that all deaf kids require ASL 24-7. Those are opposing concepts.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



it was sarcasm because you can't have it both ways. You can't say that spoken language is easily accessable to even the very late implanted, profoundly deaf from birth AND claim it is inaccessable and that all deaf kids require ASL 24-7. Those are opposing concepts.
Click to expand...

why not your against to CI you are serious! you don't do that discrimmation because serious! we are not accept discrimmation!
 
Wirelessly posted

jillio said:
AlleyCat said:
We even had a thread a couple years back asking CI users to post what they can hear. The majority were of those who were late-implanted and could still understand spoken language. I understand not all can (I think more don't than do), but there's quite a lot who do. It's on this board somewhere.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if one were to bother to check all the CI research out there, they will find that the group that receives most benefit from CI is the adventitiously deafened who had some speech skills prior to loosing their hearing.
Click to expand...

uh, yeah, of course. And then who? Those implanted very young.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



it was sarcasm because you can't have it both ways. You can't say that spoken language is easily accessable to even the very late implanted, profoundly deaf from birth AND claim it is inaccessable and that all deaf kids require ASL 24-7. Those are opposing concepts.
Click to expand...

Then you need to practice your sarcastic technique. It comes across as ignorance.:cool2:

It might help to review your reading comprehension skills as well. No one has said anything of the kind.
 
jillio said:
Then you need to practice your sarcastic technique. It comes across as ignorance.:cool2:

It might help to review your reading comprehension skills as well. No one has said anything of the kind.
Click to expand...

FJ is very no evidence no said cochlear implant because, I review her FJ is seems on argue to debated on want!
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



uh, yeah, of course. And then who? Those implanted very young.
Click to expand...
By a huge, huge gap between the two groups. Those implanted young level off in gains and quickly fall behind. Try not to intentionally misrepresent, FJ, just because you have become rabid about CIs since having your child implanted. You stiil need to be intellectually honest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top