The gift of hearing....do you cherish it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
kokonut said:
Instead of throwing the audism word around I simply advocate for a better and improved life for all people with hearing loss in terms of communication access, education, and jobs. How that is attained and achieved will vary but the goal is still the same rather than to resort to a single ideology. Why? Because technology is the one single factor that changes everything.
Click to expand...

So do you advocate ASL and Deaf culture?
 
Berry said:
This thread took a while to catch up on. Pretty much everything that can be said has been said, but I'm still going to put my foot in.

Most people are unaware consciously of what they are really saying and of what they are saying really means. If they were we might not even need the study of linguistics. Most people are equally unaware of exactly what is being said to them -- But they feel it and react to it emotionally because subconsciously they DO know.

Every language contains presuppositions. Things that are not said directly in the words or signs but are so deeply ingrained you cannot fully understand the sentence...In this case the question...without knowing them.

One of the oldest and most blatant examples is: "Do you cry when you beat your wife?"

The most obvious thing presupposed is that you do indeed beat your wife and if you answer "yes" or "no" to crying then you have admitted to beating your wife.

Less obvious is the presupposition you are capable of crying. Also less obvious is the assumption you are capable of beating her.

Now look at the initial question again:



"The gift of..." presupposes that something of value was given and received. Further it is normally presupposed that what is given should be appreciated or the receiver is an ingrate. The second part of the sentence "do you cherish" is both a slap in the face and a demand that the reader conform to what is presupposed in the first part of the sentence.

Looked at this way the question becomes a brutal attack, especially when launched toward Deaf, HoH, etc. people who might very well appreciate their gift of NOT hearing.
Click to expand...



:gpost: :gpost:

:ty: for trying to explain to Kokonut which you are right that he is giving us a brutal attack on the Deaf communities.

This is suppose to be a Deaf forum which we cherish ASL and Deaf Culture in spite of our hard of hearing and deafness. :roll:
 
shel90 said:
So do you advocate ASL and Deaf culture?
Click to expand...

I advocate anything that would allow people with hearing loss the access and the means to communicate with anyone. If it's ASL. I advocate for that. If it's SEE, same thing. CUED speech? Sure! Aural and oral approaches, why not! How people get together and have an established culture is fine. Just as well, I have no objection to those with cochlear implants and/or hearing aids get together for their own advocacy and support in their own bit of culture, too.
 
kokonut said:
I advocate anything that would allow people with hearing loss the access and the means to communicate with anyone. If it's ASL. I advocate for that. If it's SEE, same thing. CUED speech? Sure! Aural and oral approaches, why not! How people get together and have an established culture is fine. Just as well, I have no objection to those with cochlear implants and/or hearing aids get together for their own advocacy and support in their own bit of culture, too.
Click to expand...

From how you worded your posts in several different threads, it seemed like you didnt. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Berry said:
This thread took a while to catch up on. Pretty much everything that can be said has been said, but I'm still going to put my foot in.

Most people are unaware consciously of what they are really saying and of what they are saying really means. If they were we might not even need the study of linguistics. Most people are equally unaware of exactly what is being said to them -- But they feel it and react to it emotionally because subconsciously they DO know.

Every language contains presuppositions. Things that are not said directly in the words or signs but are so deeply ingrained you cannot fully understand the sentence...In this case the question...without knowing them.

One of the oldest and most blatant examples is: "Do you cry when you beat your wife?"

The most obvious thing presupposed is that you do indeed beat your wife and if you answer "yes" or "no" to crying then you have admitted to beating your wife.

Less obvious is the presupposition you are capable of crying. Also less obvious is the assumption you are capable of beating her.

Now look at the initial question again:

"The gift of..." presupposes that something of value was given and received. Further it is normally presupposed that what is given should be appreciated or the receiver is an ingrate. The second part of the sentence "do you cherish" is both a slap in the face and a demand that the reader conform to what is presupposed in the first part of the sentence.

Looked at this way the question becomes a brutal attack, especially when launched toward Deaf, HoH, etc. people who might very well appreciate their gift of NOT hearing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the arm chair analysis.

My efforts and opinions are not done at an unconscious level. I am aware that some are sensitive and how their sensibilities are easily upset even before I press the submit button.

My question was directed at participants or readers who do have beneficial hearing lleft and whether they do cherish it. Not about trapping people which you seem to be alluding to. I already see that many Deaf people do cherish their gift of NOT hearing. So, why cannot a person ask those who do have beneficial hearing if they do in fact cherish what they have via their hearing aids or cochlear implants? Sounds like you're advocating a double standard approach here on what should or should not be discussed in AD. Are you in fact saying that these things cannot or should not be discussed because AD? And that AD is only for Deaf people? Because I don't see that unless Calvin plan on changing that in the very near future. Kind of like the DeafRead thing. People got all upset because DR allowed links to blogs on cochlear implants, cued speech, hard of hearing issues, pro AGBell, pro-oral/aural, and so on.
 
shel90 said:
From how you worded your posts in several different threads, it seemed like you didnt. Thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...

Shel, nobody asked. You're the first one to ask me directly a question. And I have said these things many times in the past. In my blogs, in other forums and so on. Just as you feel passionate about ASL and how it has helped you, I am equally passionate about how my hearing aid has helped me on so many different levels.
 
kokonut said:
Thanks for the arm chair analysis.

My efforts and opinions are not done at an unconscious level. I am aware that some are sensitive and how their sensibilities are easily upset even before I press the submit button.

My question was directed at participants or readers who do have beneficial hearing lleft and whether they do cherish it. Not about trapping people which you seem to be alluding to. I already see that many Deaf people do cherish their gift of NOT hearing. So, why cannot a person ask those who do have beneficial hearing if they do in fact cherish what they have via their hearing aids or cochlear implants? Sounds like you're advocating a double standard approach here on what should or should not be discussed in AD. Are you in fact saying that these things cannot or should not be discussed because AD? And that AD is only for Deaf people? Because I don't see that unless Calvin plan on changing that in the very near future. Kind of like the DeafRead thing. People got all upset because DR allowed links to blogs on cochlear implants, cued speech, hard of hearing issues, pro AGBell, pro-oral/aural, and so on.
Click to expand...

I remember people at Deafread getting upset at this one blogger because her mom kept going on and on about how the Deaf community wasnt for her daughter and how inferior ASL was. I think most people on DR didnt like anyone making negative generalizations about Deaf people, ASL and Deaf culture hence the revolt. For most bloggers, it was much more than just allowing links to those blogs.
 
shel90 said:
I remember people at Deafread getting upset at this one blogger because her mom kept going on and on about how the Deaf community wasnt for her daughter and how inferior ASL was. I think most people on DR didnt like anyone making negative generalizations about Deaf people, ASL and Deaf culture hence the revolt. For most bloggers, it was much more than just allowing links to those blogs.
Click to expand...

It was about wanting to keep it strictly a Deaf-centric aggregator site. A monopoly, if you will. Yet people need to see these alternative viewpoints whether one likes it or not and let readers of all stripes decide.
 
Whoo, some pretty damn good postings, Berry, and MrsB.

I'm still waiting to find out what "much bigger things" that I've been missing out on since I'm fully deaf....
I WANT TO KNOW!
 
kokonut said:
It was about wanting to keep it strictly a Deaf-centric aggregator site. A monopoly, if you will. Yet people need to see these alternative viewpoints whether one likes it or not and let readers of all stripes decide.
Click to expand...

Maybe for some people, it was about keeping it a Deaf-centric site, but I know several of the bloggers and they told me that for them it was for a different reason.
 
kokonut said:
It was about wanting to keep it strictly a Deaf-centric aggregator site. A monopoly, if you will. Yet people need to see these alternative viewpoints whether one likes it or not and let readers of all stripes decide.
Click to expand...

Not true.
All of us are open to discussion of all different views, provided we all are positive about it. That's how I see it.
 
Not everyone fits into the deaf culture. I would like to be part of the deaf culture, but when I was homeless the woman from the deaf organisation in Birmingham, England discriminated against me because I was deafblind. They said they only wanted to help Deaf people.

Hopefully this is just an isolated incident. I don't know. I think the deaf culture is great for people who are accepted in it, but not everyone is.

Those from oral upbringings have it harder. Some will learn signing and manage to fit into the deaf community as soon as they are able, but not everybody can or does. Maybe some people who don't find the deaf community particularly forthcomming may rebel against that. They can then chose either to blame it on their oral upbringing or blame it on the deaf community for rejecting them.

To me Audism is very much in existance, so I would disagree with Kokonut on that issue. However, people seem to be attacking Kokonut and I don't agree with that.
 
dreama said:
Not everyone fits into the deaf culture. I would like to be part of the deaf culture, but when I was homeless the woman from the deaf organisation in Birmingham, England discriminated against me because I was deafblind. They said they only wanted to help Deaf people.

Hopefully this is just an isolated incident. I don't know. I think the deaf culture is great for people who are accepted in it, but not everyone is.

Those from oral upbringings have it harder. Some will learn signing and manage to fit into the deaf community as soon as they are able, but not everybody can or does. Maybe some people who don't find the deaf community particularly forthcomming may rebel against that. They can then chose either to blame it on their oral upbringing or blame it on the deaf community for rejecting them.

To me Audism is very much in existance, so I would disagree with Kokonut on that issue. However, people seem to be attacking Kokonut and I don't agree with that.
Click to expand...

The deaf community is harsh on it's own self as well. Very true. I've been told by a 7th generation deaf lady that she disliked me because I had a hearing family. When I introduced her to my deaf girlfriend and daughter I told her, meet my deaf family. She wanted me to be a part of her life.

You guys can guess what I told her.
 
shel90 said:
Like I said, it is about the audist attitudes. Who wants to deal with that? Not me.
Click to expand...

It got to do more with the comments left on their blogs, attacking their way of lives, mroe than DeafRead itself.

I got a few nasty ones that I ended up suppressing because they were linked to other websites-- voicing your opinion is one thing, but advertising for another company, promoting a certain school or linking to another website to direct traffic is not.
 
posts from hell said:
Not true.
All of us are open to discussion of all different views, provided we all are positive about it. That's how I see it.
Click to expand...

Who is this "we" crapolo nonsense? And now all of a sudden people come running to the defense saying, "Oh, yeah, we are open to discussion" but it has to be "positive"..??

Oh, really?

*checking past posts*

I am open to any discussion whether it's a negative or positive viewpoint. The crux of it is how one can handle other people's opinions.
 
souggy said:
It got to do more with the comments left on their blogs, attacking their way of lives, mroe than DeafRead itself.

I got a few nasty ones that I ended up suppressing because they were linked to other websites-- voicing your opinion is one thing, but advertising for another company, promoting a certain school or linking to another website to direct traffic is not.
Click to expand...

Who is attacking who? The audists attacking Deaf people's way of life or the other way around? Thanks for clarifying.
 
souggy said:
It got to do more with the comments left on their blogs, attacking their way of lives, mroe than DeafRead itself.

I got a few nasty ones that I ended up suppressing because they were linked to other websites-- voicing your opinion is one thing, but advertising for another company, promoting a certain school or linking to another website to direct traffic is not.
Click to expand...

Examples and links, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top