Why everyone have to hate people with CI?

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlleyCat said:
They give me environmental sounds, and limited ones at that. e.g. I can't hear my cats meowing, birds chirping, etc.

But it does alert me to something (loud) going on around me, such as someone trying to get my attention at work, etc.

While some of that is really cool, actually, my point was that my lack of access to sound doesn't change the fact that I could still learn to speak, to understand others, to write, etc.
Click to expand...
Like you, I also learned to speak and all that with just the hearing aids. However, your having a severe hearing loss when you were younger probably helped. As opposed to those with a "100+ DB" profound hearing loss, it becomes harder for them. One way or another, I still say kudos to you on your accomplishments!
 
Daredevel7 said:
Hm.... I find it interesting that when someone brags about their life with CI/HA, how they are happy with it, and how well they are doing with speaking/writing, socially, and academically, Deaf people usually respond with "yea right." or "Well, he is just a AGB superstar. Rare as a albino bat.". And hearing people say "See? Anyone can do it."

But if someone brags about their life WITHOUT HAs or CI, how they are happy with it, and how well they are doing with speaking/writing, socially, and academically, Deaf people usually respond with "See? Anyone can do it." And hearing people say "yea right." or "He's just a superstar."

Y'all aren't that different....

P.S. Fighting Grendel over CI/oralism? Come on. You know she's giving her child the best of both worlds. I think y'all are just using her as a scapegoat for your hate of oralism just because she said the taboo words: "Access to sound" and "speech"
Click to expand...


My arguement with her is about speaking the language is using speech skills while she calls it language.

If you and Grendal want to call speech language, be my guest.

Nothing about her child so pls dont make it about her child. Thank you.
 
shel90 said:
My arguement with her is about speaking the language is using speech skills while she calls it language.

If you and Grendal want to call speech language, be my guest.

Nothing about her child so pls dont make it about her child. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Speech is a mode of language. Speech = spoken language. Someone has to be speaking for the spoken mode of language to be received.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Speech is a mode of language. Speech = spoken language. Someone has to be speaking for the spoken mode of language to be received.
Click to expand...

Well, no matter what we say, we are the bad ones and get acussed of driving people away.
 
shel90 said:
My arguement with her is about speaking the language is using speech skills while she calls it language.

If you and Grendal want to call speech language, be my guest.

Nothing about her child so pls dont make it about her child. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Very much the opposite: my argument is that speech is not a language, it is a skill, a component among others used to express spoken language. It is Jillio who has been equating speech with spoken language.

I believe that fluency in spoken language requires more than just speaking/expressing it. Much like literacy requires more than just writing letters: you also need to be able to read and understand English in order to say you grasp written English
 
shel90 said:
My arguement with her is about speaking the language is using speech skills while she calls it language.

If you and Grendal want to call speech language, be my guest.

Nothing about her child so pls dont make it about her child. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I am talking about the general responses to Grendel in this thread and others.

Now, as for this whole speech, spoken language, language business. I don't want to get involved cuz umm... in my eyes, y'all actually agree in the big picture and argue about the wording/meaning.
 
shel90 said:
Well, no matter what we say, we are the bad ones and get acussed of driving people away.
Click to expand...

Yes, we are such nasty people!:giggle:

I guess some just have a paroblem with being shown the mistakes in their thinking. I would think that hearing parents would come here to learn.:dunno2:

You know, I was thinking earlier, if I had gone into the deaf community with the attitude I see around here from some hearing parents, I would have been kicked to the curb in short order! Thank God, for my son's sake, I had a different attitude and was able to learn from those that had the ability to teach me.
 
GrendelQ said:
There is an expressive component, a receptive component, and a comprehension component to language that applies to each mode. Spoken language does not equal speech, as you say. Expressing it can be accomplished via speaking, observing it via hearing (and some people can observe nearly 30% of meaning by speechreading), although this is all just delivery/ mechanics without the ability to comprehend/form the message.
Click to expand...

If this reads literally as you have written it.... Someone with no/or little access to sound would be unable to express, process, or comprehend language. For those of us, with no/or little access to sound, who are to read, write and express ourselves in ways that match the best of anyone, and more often than not, surpassing the expections of a hearing society - this is nothing short of an grave insult. I would suggest you refrain from going any further in this direction.
 
BecLak said:
If this reads literally as you have written it.... Someone with no/or little access to sound would be unable to express, process, or comprehend language. For those of us, with no/or little access to sound, who are to read, write and express ourselves in ways that match the best of anyone, and more often than not, surpassing the expections of a hearing society - this is nothing short of an grave insult. I would suggest you refrain from going any further in this direction.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the suggestion, but no. Instead, I suggest you read again, this time carefully. There is no statement or indication or logical conclusion anywhere in what I've written that says someone with no/or little access to sound would be unable to express, process, or comprehend language or that access to sound has something to do with writing or reading.

I don't mind it when someone opposes what I actually write or say. But when you try to construct strawmen to battle with, don't label them anything of my making.
 
GrendelQ said:
Thank you for the suggestion, but no. Instead, I suggest you read again, this time carefully. There is no statement or indication or logical conclusion anywhere in what I've written that says someone with no/or little access to sound would be unable to express, process, or comprehend language or that access to sound has something to do with writing or reading.

I don't mind it when someone opposes what I actually write or say. But when you try to construct strawmen to battle with, don't label them anything of my making.
Click to expand...

Speech is just one mode of language. Comprehension, expression and receptibility is what makes language, not speech. We have different modes to achieve the same outcome. BTW, have you forgotten already? I and many other d/Deaf can speak, and some quite well I might add, without/or little access to sound. To clarify: Comprehension, expression and receptibility can be achieved by other modes, not just by having access to sounds. So your argument renders pointless.
 
BecLak said:
Speech is just one mode of language. Comprehension, expression and receptibility is what makes language, not speech. We have different modes to achieve the same outcome. BTW, have you forgotten already? I and many other d/Deaf can speak, and some quite well I might add, without/or little access to sound. To clarify: Comprehension, expression and receptibility can be achieved by other modes, not just by having access to sounds. So your argument renders pointless.
Click to expand...

Right. Those factors apply to communication, not just spoken language.
 
BecLak said:
Speech is just one mode of language. Comprehension, expression and receptibility is what makes language, not speech. We have different modes to achieve the same outcome. BTW, have you forgotten already? I and many other d/Deaf can speak, and some quite well I might add, without/or little access to sound. To clarify: Comprehension, expression and receptibility can be achieved by other modes, not just by having access to sounds. So your argument renders pointless.
Click to expand...

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: If you want to disagree with me so badly, you'll have to stop plagiarizing me.

GrendelQ said:
There is an expressive component, a receptive component, and a comprehension component to language that applies to each mode. Spoken language does not equal speech, as you say. Expressing it can be accomplished via speaking, observing it via hearing (and some people can observe nearly 30% of meaning by speechreading), although this is all just delivery/ mechanics without the ability to comprehend/form the message.
Click to expand...
 
GrendelQ said:
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: If you want to disagree with me so badly, you'll have to stop plagiarizing me.
Click to expand...

I was not plagiarizing you. I have a question for you then - How do you differentuate between written (and/or) visual mode and that of spoken mode?

Spoken is spoken, written is written, and visual is visual. Regardless of mode, language is acquired by comprehension, receptibility, and expression. This can be acheived by either mode and does not necessarily require access to sound. Speech can not only be expressed by the ability to speak but also by phonetics. Phonetics lead to reading, writing, comprehension which leads to receptibility and expression. All this can be achieved with or without/or with little access to sound. The ability to speak is not language.
 
BecLak said:
I was not plagiarizing you. ...

The ability to speak is not language.
Click to expand...

Again, if you want to position yourself as disagreeing with me, you are going to have to actually disagree with me. Otherwise, you can just hit the like button on all my posts and save yourself a lot of time.


GrendelQ said:
... my argument is that speech is not a language, it is a skill, a component among others used to express spoken language. It is Jillio who has been equating speech with spoken language.

I believe that fluency in spoken language requires more than just speaking/expressing it. Much like literacy requires more than just writing letters: you also need to be able to read and understand English in order to say you grasp written English
Click to expand...
 
Let me add: Whether it be spoken, written or visual, language is acquired by comprehension, receptibility, and expression. The ability to hear or speak does not come into play as a vital component of acquiring language.
 
I see speech as phonetics (not just the ability to speak) therefore it is spoken language,

However, you say speech is 'speech skills' therefore 'the ability to speak'.
Spoken language is therefore not speech. That is why I wrote it as such. I was not in fact agreeing with you but disagreeing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top