CI--Deaf or Hearing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I said only people who are profoundly deaf would benefit from ASL. Sure. Ok.
 
CSign said:
Post deleted. No point in posting.
Click to expand...

I read your original post and I thought it was fine. My parents made the best choice possible based on information available to them. I turned out just fine but with heavy cost. Same for others especially Shel and... I'm trying to remember who else.

I can't say same for other deafies (aka "majority") because it does not produce a reliable result. The only way to make it successful is if there is a FULL parental involvement and financial means to do it. This is a heavy responsibility and draining for deaf children.

We simply don't wish to let our deaf children go thru same thing as us because now we know better what works for deaf children. It's ASL and English together as BiBi program. I believe Grendel is using that route (correct me if I'm wrong). Deaf children should not go thru hell and hardship to be on same playing field as hearing children.

I see that you're getting a lot of flak but it's not because of the choice you picked for your deaf son. It's because of your reasoning behind it. You should at least concede that SEE is not a complete language and few other points such as ANY deaf children regardless of their range of hearing loss do benefit from ASL which in no way does impede one's ability to build a solid foundation of English.
 
CSign said:
Yes, I said only people who are profoundly deaf would benefit from ASL. Sure. Ok.
Click to expand...

It is just the way you phrase things. Like Jiro said, your reasoning is giving us that message.
 
Jiro said:
I read your original post and I thought it was fine. My parents made the best choice possible based on information given to them. I turned out fine but with heavy cost. Same for others especially Shel and... I'm trying to remember who else.

I can't say same for other deafies (aka "majority") because it does not produce a reliable result. The only way to make it successful is if there is a FULL parental involvement and financial means to do it. This is a heavy responsibility and draining for deaf children.

We simply don't wish to let our deaf children go thru same thing as us because now we know better what works for deaf children. It's ASL and English together as BiBi program. I believe Grendel is using that route (correct me if I'm wrong).

I see that you're getting a lot of flak but it's not because of the choice you picked for your deaf son. It's because of your reasoning behind it. You should
at least concede that SEE is not a complete language and few other points
such as ANY deaf children regardless of their range of hearing loss do benefit
from ASL which in no way does impede one's ability to build a solid foundation
of English.
Click to expand...

I have never advocated against a DHH child using ASL. In fact, I vehemently advocate for it in most circumstances. I conceded in the first page or two of the other thread that SEE itself isn't a language, that it's essentially another mode of English. It seems people like to forget that I've said certain things including that and the fact that I value ASL. I never said other paths impede acquisition of English. We just simply took a different route.
 
shel90 said:
It is just the way you phrase things. Like Jiro said, your reasoning is giving us that message.
Click to expand...

When one says, "If my son were profoundly deaf" and then goes on to say ASL would have been a reasonable decision,but because he is not porfoundly deaf, SEE was used, that is exactly what the wording states. That only the profoundly deaf need or benefit from ASL.
 
CSign said:
I have never advocated against a DHH child using ASL. In fact, I vehemently advocate for it in most circumstances. I conceded in the first page or two of the other thread that SEE itself isn't a language, that it's essentially another mode of English. It seems people like to forget that I've said certain things including that and the fact that I value ASL. I never said other paths impede acquisition of English. We just simply took a different route.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. If you are such a vehement advocate for ASL why is it that you don't use it with your own child? If you think it is so wonderful, don't you want to provide for your own child what you advocate for others?

Your reasoning just makes no sense what so ever, and it leaves everything you state open to skepticism. Your actions and your words do not match up. When that happens, it is the actions that tell the most truthful story.
 
CSign said:
I have never advocated against a DHH child using ASL. In fact, I vehemently advocate for it in most circumstances. I conceded in the first page or two of the other thread that SEE itself isn't a language, that it's essentially another mode of English. It seems people like to forget that I've said certain things including that and the fact that I value ASL. I never said other paths impede acquisition of English. We just simply took a different route.
Click to expand...

Great, you value ASL but decide not to use it with your son. :hmm:
 
jillio said:
This makes no sense. If you are such a vehement advocate for ASL why is it that you don't use it with your own child? If you think it is so wonderful, don't you want to provide for your own child what you advocate for others?

Your reasoning just makes no sense what so ever, and it leaves everything you state open to skepticism. Your actions and your words do not match up. When that happens, it is the actions that tell the most truthful story.
Click to expand...

I reading seems pretty she actually on responsiblty tough! I guess It is very prove on her is very sign language! I don't know what is happened find out will take on observed SEE is very not different I am deaf, ASL:am I deaf (short abbreviation)

I aware it!!!
 
shel90 said:
Great, you value ASL but decide not to use it with your son. :hmm:
Click to expand...

And she wonder why she's met with skepticism when she says she values ASL.


For the record, when I was growing up; I had a severe to profound loss and I'm certain I would have benefited from ASL then. By her criteria, I would have been disqualified from being allowed ASL.

Most of my oral class mates came to prefer ASL even though most of them coud hear better than me.
 
deafskeptic said:
And she wonder why she's met with skepticism when she says she values ASL.


For the record, when I was growing up; I had a severe to profound loss and I'm certain I would have benefited from ASL then. By her criteria, I would have been disqualified from being allowed ASL.

Most of my oral class mates came to prefer ASL even though most of them coud hear better than me.
Click to expand...

Evidently, she has never engaged in a simulation of what even a mild loss means to perception.

There are questions all over this thread that she is simply ignoring and not answering. But she already backed herself into the proverbial corner.
 
CSign said:
If my son were profoundly deaf, or had little residual hearing our course of action likely would have been different.
Click to expand...

Can I ask, what is it that you would have done differently?
 
Can I ask- why would I respond to any more questions about my personal life when I'll just be labeled an Audist? It doesn't matter what I write- a select few will take it, twist it, stomp on it, eat it, then spew the hatred, nastiness and venom on to me. It seems I cannot write much about this subject without people reading into what isn't there.

Last time someone seemed sincere, I gave a genuine response. To which people took that and ran with it, throwing me in the Audism corner.

No thank you. I have no interest at this point in engaging in further conversation about my choices because no matter what I say, it will be misinterpreted to suit the needs of those who like to think that all (but one) hearing people are Audist.
 
So predictable.:roll:

And here we go again with the victim card. Poor wittle SEESign.
 
I don't think that all hearing people are audists. I don't appreciate you characterizing me as that. Grow up.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I think to brand all Deaf as Deaf militants IS perjorative especially when it's done so to ridicule or devalue their views and concerns.

No, I don't think opposition to CIs in babies is a militant view. I was speaking in reference to drphil flinging that label about. But you know this already. I'm getting the impression you're being deliberately obtuse.

To me militant means aggressive, combative, creating riots, and breaking the law for a cause. Did you know in the 90s, the deaf community was not granted any access to any meetings regarding CIs in deaf babies and that this lockout is what created the uproar? That the hearing world did not care what the deaf had to say about implantation of deaf babies? No wonder some Deaf people got very mad and made a scene about it and for this, they were called militants by the media and the hearing world. I can't tell you how many times I've read on the internet that deaf people who don't implant their babies are selfish coldhearted evil assholes so naturally it's not surprising that they would be the same people to brand the Deaf as militants.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. It is like Milan 1880 again. Some hearing people do play dirty!
 
sallylou said:
I don't think that all hearing people are audists. I don't appreciate you characterizing me as that. Grow up.
Click to expand...

Nor do I think that all hearing people are audist. I think that hearing people who consistently demonstrate audist beliefs and who consistently make audist statements are audist.:lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top