ASL, SEE Sign, & Signed English

rockdrummer said:
Based on that would you deprive a child of the potential success from the CI for your fear of the demise of ASL? Just curious.
Click to expand...

When I said anti-CI ME..it means I dont want one for myself. Dont care if others get it. If I had a deaf child, I would wait until the child is old enough to choose and if my child wants one, then I will support his/her decision.
 
Originally Posted by rockdrummer
Based on that would you deprive a child of the potential success from the CI for your fear of the demise of ASL? Just curious.
Click to expand...
shel90 said:
I just dont like the idea of surgery on my baby. That's a personal issue with me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood. I was basing my question on your comment

"I am against the beliefs that because the child gets a CI, the child doesn't need sign language"

As I re-read that I understand that you are saying you are against others believing that ASL is not necessary with a CI. But isn’t the basis of that belief preservation of D/deaf culture? From what I have gathered so far, the argument between ASL and other forms of sign language have good and bad points in many areas. So doesn’t it come down to personal choice?
 
rockdrummer said:
Sorry, I misunderstood. I was basing my question on your comment

"I am against the beliefs that because the child gets a CI, the child doesn't need sign language"

As I re-read that I understand that you are saying you are against others believing that ASL is not necessary with a CI. But isn’t the basis of that belief preservation of D/deaf culture? From what I have gathered so far, the argument between ASL and other forms of sign language have good and bad points in many areas. So doesn’t it come down to personal choice?
Click to expand...

Right now I am just too worried about children getting delayed in language because they didnt pick up on spoken language and then introduced to ASL at an older age..like at 3 or 4 which is the typical age that most people take action when they find out that their children arent benefiting from oral language only.

If ASL dies out..I hope to be dead long before that. Kinda harsh but it is honest. If future children stop using ASL or dont need sign, then I am out of a job and will find another job. I will still have my friends my age to use ASL with but I just would feel bad for those deaf people who rely on ASL only and have a very limited number of people to meet if ASL starts dying out. That would suck big time for them simply because they couldnt develop lipreading nor speaking skills.
 
rockdrummer said:
I don't believe that it would just as I dont believe sign language would fail becuse of the CI.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay. It could, eventually. No one knows what will happen in the future with technology. What if they can someday re-code someone's DNA to fix whatever goes wrong to cause deafness? It's possible. It's a beautiful language, but if people don't use it....
 
shel90 said:
Right now I am just too worried about children getting delayed in language because they didnt pick up on spoken language and then introduced to ASL at an older age..like at 3 or 4 which is the typical age that most people take action when they find out that their children arent benefiting from oral language only.

If ASL dies out..I hope to be dead long before that. Kinda harsh but it is honest. If future children stop using ASL or dont need sign, then I am out of a job and will find another job. I will still have my friends my age to use ASL with but I just would feel bad for those deaf people who rely on ASL only and have a very limited number of people to meet if ASL starts dying out. That would suck big time for them simply because they couldnt develop lipreading nor speaking skills.
Click to expand...

Technology will perhaps adapt, as I said in another thread. Glasses one wears that read lips for you and print text for your to read in the lenses. A watch/wrist device that learns your hand movements and interprets your sign into the spoken word... these things aren't outside the realm of posibility. Now... would that be the same as signing? No--and you'd still sign with people who knew sign (and not just deaf people who rely on ASL know ASL ;) ) but think what you're doing now? You're communicating with people from all over the world--even though you're deaf--in a manner that 20 years ago was almost unheard of and 100 years ago would have been considered fantasy. VLOGS/BLOGs, IM's, Sidekicks and Blackberries, Videophones, IP Relay... the deaf are no longer isolated as they once were, with only others from their deaf school to talk to.

Think about it. Imagine if you could go back to 1907, or 1957, and tell deaf people from that time how you communicate via handheld computers and world wide computer network links and tv studios in our homes... they'd think you were nuts. :)
 
Capmeister said:
Ah, okay. It could, eventually. No one knows what will happen in the future with technology. What if they can someday re-code someone's DNA to fix whatever goes wrong to cause deafness? It's possible. It's a beautiful language, but if people don't use it....
Click to expand...
you never know what the future holds. I am no expert but I would venture to say it will be a long time out before they are able to re-code DNA. It sounds like a scary proposition to me but hey, you never know what science will come up with.
 
rockdrummer said:
you never know what the future holds. I am no expert but I would venture to say it will be a long time out before they are able to re-code DNA. It sounds like a scary proposition to me but hey, you never know what science will come up with.
Click to expand...

Well, less than 200 years ago we had no electricity, let alone television, radio, satillite communications, handheld music, and so on. No refridgerator/freezer, no microwave, no washer/dryer, no quartz watches, etc. etc. Think of all the things invented that would seem like MAGIC back then. And think about the next 200 years. :)
 
Capmeister said:
It's not that simple. There ARE people who've benefitted from their CI. I wouldn't get anything peirced, but I wouldn't be anti-peircing...just anti-peircing ME.

And, if I suddenly went deaf, and could be helped with a CI, I'd get it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining it. As with you, I am not anti CI in that I feel that it is my duty to make the decision for anyone else. My son chooses not to be implanted, and I fully support him in his decisions. Should he decide, for whatever reason, that he would like to be implanted in the future, then I will support him in that decision, as well. It is his deafness, and it is he who must decide the best way to cope with it. I have never experienced deafness, so how can I possibly say that hearing is a preferable condition and one that we must all strive for. That is what I am against. The imposition of a hearing perspective on an entire population of people who have managed to face untold obstacles--most of them imposed by hearing culture--and still survive and thrive intact. I am against the so called attempt to help from an ethnocentric perspective. If the issue was really one of being of assistance to the Deaf community, why is that that the Deaf viewpoint and experience is totally discounted in the decision making process?
 
jillio said:
If the issue was really one of being of assistance to the Deaf community, why is that that the Deaf viewpoint and experience is totally discounted in the decision making process?
Click to expand...
Is this really true? How is it that you know this is happening? And is it widespread or just in pockets? Just curious.
 
rockdrummer said:
Sorry, I misunderstood. I was basing my question on your comment

"I am against the beliefs that because the child gets a CI, the child doesn't need sign language"

As I re-read that I understand that you are saying you are against others believing that ASL is not necessary with a CI. But isn’t the basis of that belief preservation of D/deaf culture? From what I have gathered so far, the argument between ASL and other forms of sign language have good and bad points in many areas. So doesn’t it come down to personal choice?
Click to expand...

The way I see it, rd, people do not choose to be born deaf. And with the deafness comes the need to make sense of their world that allows them to comprehend based on the sensory input they do receive. The need for visual communication is not really a choice--its inherent in deafness. Even those who use assistive devises rely on visual skills to completely interpret the stimuli.

You know, this may seem to be a trite analogy, but I am a widow. My son's father died when he was six. I did not choose to become a widow. However, once that condition was imposed upon me, it was my decision whether I wanted to cope with the widowhood by remaining a single parent, or by becoming involved in a second relationship. But make no mistake, it was my choice to make, and I had to live with whatever choice I made. No one had any right to tell me the "best way" to cope with a situation I lived with everyday.
 
jillio said:
The way I see it, rd, people do not choose to be born deaf. And with the deafness comes the need to make sense of their world that allows them to comprehend based on the sensory input they do receive. The need for visual communication is not really a choice--its inherent in deafness. Even those who use assistive devises rely on visual skills to completely interpret the stimuli.

You know, this may seem to be a trite analogy, but I am a widow. My son's father died when he was six. I did not choose to become a widow. However, once that condition was imposed upon me, it was my decision whether I wanted to cope with the widowhood by remaining a single parent, or by becoming involved in a second relationship. But make no mistake, it was my choice to make, and I had to live with whatever choice I made. No one had any right to tell me the "best way" to cope with a situation I lived with everyday.
Click to expand...
Jillio, I get that but I don't get the impression that anything is being forced on anybody. In fact it seems quite opposite. Wasn't it the hearing that brought closed captioning, HA's, CI's and the various forms of sign so that folks can make choices? Nobody is forcing anyone down any given path. We all have the freewill to decide for ourselves on how we view things and which path we choose. Am I missing something
 
rockdrummer said:
Jillio, I get that but I don't get the impression that anything is being forced on anybody. In fact it seems quite opposite. Wasn't it the hearing that brought closed captioning, HA's, CI's and the various forms of sign so that folks can make choices? Nobody is forcing anyone down any given path. We all have the freewill to decide for ourselves on how we view things and which path we choose. Am I missing something
Click to expand...

yea and we have freewill but the children don't and if hearing people who don't have background knowledge on deafness, language acquisition, or understanding of the risk, it is those children who pays the price if they become delayed in language because nobody really knows what to do with them.

My primary focus is on the child's language development and I have seen success with children being exposed to both but people still like to argue about deaf people needing to fit in with hearing people or deaf people who didn't get implanted r missing out on spoken skills. To me it seems that oral skills take priority over the children's ability to acquire a full L! And develop rich lieracy skills.
 
rockdrummer said:
Jillio, I get that but I don't get the impression that anything is being forced on anybody. In fact it seems quite opposite. Wasn't it the hearing that brought closed captioning, HA's, CI's and the various forms of sign so that folks can make choices? Nobody is forcing anyone down any given path. We all have the freewill to decide for ourselves on how we view things and which path we choose. Am I missing something
Click to expand...

I see this is a reply to Jilio, but just want to add something here, so excuse me.

Interpreters was brought to us by deaf people, not hearings. I am not sure what you mean with "various forms of sign", but if we are talking sign language/ASL, it was invented by deaf people, not hearing people. Sign language grows naturally where deaf people are. Closed captioning is also something that deaf people have demanded. Hearing aids was brought to us by old deafened scientist who wantet to hear more. You would maybe find some books on deaf history interesting if you want to know more. Gallaudet Press have some.

But CI... that is a bit different. No deaf people have been involved with that, or asked for it. Another interesting thing, is that I have asked various deaf people if they could choose between a goverment/healtcare/insurance sponsed CI implant, and the cash it takes to do the implant. Almost everyone says CASH thank you.. This is a clear example of wrongly spent money and ethnocentrical aid. I am willing to bet 1 million dollars with you, that NAD would spend the money the society uses on CI now, on something totally different if they could choose. And that is not because they are scared of CI beeing so powerful it can annihilate ASL, but due to it beeing of so little practical use.

The main reason CI is so widespread, is that parents choose to implant their kids, and kids cannot make this choice.

What is the "various forms of sign" anyway? Curious.
 
rockdrummer said:
Is this really true? How is it that you know this is happening? And is it widespread or just in pockets? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Yes, its true. Just check out historically, how educational policies are decided for instance. And it is widespread.
 
flip said:
I see this is a reply to Jilio, but just want to add something here, so excuse me.

Interpreters was brought to us by deaf people, not hearings. I am not sure what you mean with "various forms of sign", but if we are talking sign language/ASL, it was invented by deaf people, not hearing people. Sign language grows naturally where deaf people are. Closed captioning is also something that deaf people have demanded. Hearing aids was brought to us by old deafened scientist who wantet to hear more. You would maybe find some books on deaf history interesting if you want to know more. Gallaudet Press have some.

But CI... that is a bit different. No deaf people have been involved with that, or asked for it. Another interesting thing, is that I have asked various deaf people if they could choose between a goverment/healtcare/insurance sponsed CI implant, and the cash it takes to do the implant. Almost everyone says CASH thank you.. This is a clear example of wrongly spent money and ethnocentrical aid. I am willing to bet 1 million dollars with you, that NAD would spend the money the society uses on CI now, on something totally different if they could choose. And that is not because they are scared of CI beeing so powerful it can annihilate ASL, but due to it beeing of so little practical use.

The main reason CI is so widespread, is that parents choose to implant their kids, and kids cannot make this choice.

What is the "various forms of sign" anyway? Curious.
Click to expand...

:ty: Saved me some typing time on this one.
 
shel90 said:
yea and we have freewill but the children don't and if hearing people who don't have background knowledge on deafness, language acquisition, or understanding of the risk, it is those children who pays the price if they become delayed in language because nobody really knows what to do with them.

My primary focus is on the child's language development and I have seen success with children being exposed to both but people still like to argue about deaf people needing to fit in with hearing people or deaf people who didn't get implanted r missing out on spoken skills. To me it seems that oral skills take priority over the children's ability to acquire a full L! And develop rich lieracy skills.
Click to expand...

**nodding agreement**
 
rockdrummer said:
We all have the freewill to decide for ourselves on how we view things and which path we choose. Am I missing something
Click to expand...

What about children? They don't have no say in receiving cochlear implants, parents make the choice for them. It's the same thing about abortion, women have that right to choose to have the baby or aborted it, and again a child has no say in this. Where's the individual choice in this situation? Because they have no ability to make a choice because they're young and not fully understand? But again it's their life isn't it? ;)
 
Cheri said:
What about children? They don't have no say in receiving cochlear implants, parents make the choice for them. It's the same thing about abortion, women have that right to choose to have the baby or aborted it, and again a child has no say in this. Where's the individual choice in this situation? Because they have no ability to make a choice because they're young and not fully understand? But again it's their life isn't it? ;)
Click to expand...

You mean our kids aren't our possessions?:eek3:
 
Back
Top