WFD now bans "deaf-mute" and "hearing impaired"

Frisky Feline said:
ha ha


i would prefer "voice off" because its our choice not to use voice or not. Does not mean that we cant talk. We do have sound in our voice box but not use it therefore its voice off.

Mute does sound very negatively word to me like no voicebox then can't talk. it makes sense for someone who just lost their voicebox then mute there you go.
Click to expand...
Ok, for me it's some pride in saying I'm deaf mute. Speech, what for!?!

But got your points and that's propably what wfd is thinking about, too.
 
Beach girl said:
No, I didn't know that about Jewish law.

Deaf and dumb didn't mean stupid, though. "Dumb" in that context means "not speaking." We still use the phrase as in "I was dumb-founded" or "I was dumb-struck," meaning "I was so surprised I was speechless."

Obviously I know that over time, "dumb" by itself has come to mean "stupid," but that wasn't the original meaning.
Click to expand...

That can explain why deaf people appeared to accept deaf and dumb before? Ok, guessing a bit.
 
Cheetah said:
I think Kokonut is itching for a fight???
Click to expand...

Nope. Just she wasn't clear on the usage of "you." From all indication, until further notice, it appears to be a general you you, and not a challenge to Beach Girl. Tis all.

:wave:
 
DeafCaroline said:
Did you know under Jewish law, deaf-mutes were not considered moral agents (people who can reason and form self-interested judgments) and as such, were not permitted to own estate, act as witnesses or be charged for any crime?
Click to expand...
IIRC, jews/israelittes divided between those who where both deaf and voice off, and those who could speak. Those who could speak had more rights. The reason was not that those who couldn't speak necessary was stupid, but it was hard for hearing people who didn't know sign language to know wheter that deaf person was reliable or not. Don't remember where I read about this, but think it was somewhere on the net.

If this is correct, at least, jews were honest about their limited abilities to judge deaf people.
 
flip said:
IIRC, jews/israelittes divided between those who where both deaf and voice off, and those who could speak. Those who could speak had more rights. The reason was not that those who couldn't speak necessary was stupid, but it was hard for hearing people who didn't know sign language to know wheter that deaf person was reliable or not. Don't remember where I read about this, but think it was somewhere on the net.

If this is correct, at least, jews were honest about their limited abilities to judge deaf people.
Click to expand...

Or just lazy and ignorant.
 
I'm always sad when I read about this in history of Judaism.
Particularly depressing when a people who have themselves been discriminated against, then go and do the same with another group-
 
Basically, I think it is deaf people's fault that the word "hearing impaired" sound revolting and bad because of the way we sign it. In Australian Sign Language, how do we say hearing impaired in sign language? Hearing Fail. That how we sign it. So all deaf people suddenly compain about the name.

If we didn't invent the "Hearing Fail" sign for hearing impaired, we wouldn't complain.. I guess?
 
Re: the Judaic law, how long ago was that? Or is that still part of Jewish law as it relates to their own matters?
 
Beach girl said:
Re: the Judaic law, how long ago was that? Or is that still part of Jewish law as it relates to their own matters?
Click to expand...
Good question. I know no more than one can dig up with google and wikipedia. Can only guess it maybe was practiced by the israelittes around 400 BC, and continued into 500 CE when they became more known as judeans or jews. Maybe some communities ruled by rabbis continued that practice. Curious about this one myself.
 
flip said:
Good question. I know no more than one can dig up with google and wikipedia. Can only guess it maybe was practiced by the israelittes around 400 BC, and continued into 500 CE when they became more known as judeans or jews. Maybe some communities ruled by rabbis continued that practice. Curious about this one myself.
Click to expand...

Despite being Jewish I can't really answer that question either, but I can make a few comments. The classification in ancient Jewish law (of deaf-mutes having the same legal status as minors which meant they could not be witnesses, own property or be considered liable for doing anything illegal as Deaf Caroline had noted earlier) basically falls under the domain of what is now considered secular law. So ... after the fall of ancient Israel (before 600 CE) this classification obviously must have had more impact in theoretical discussions and social status than in day to day life for Jewish people living outside of Israeli (known under various names in the past) boundaries over the centuries.

Its worth noting that despite this classification as minors it appears that deaf-mute people were allowed to get married and to also acquire and own movable property. I'll comment more on this later.

Is the ancient Jewish law part of present day Israeli law? I've googled pretty extensively and can find nothing about that one way or the other. I did find a web site for an organization called The Institute for the Advancement of Deaf Persons in Israel ( Programs) that had many of its web pages available in English (vs. Hebrew), including a web page listing their current projects. The bad news is that this organization is led by professionals in the field of deafness and not by deaf people. But if deaf people in modern day Israel were not able to be witnesses in court or own real estate, I would think I'd be able to find something about that on the web.

Lastly, I just want to make it clear that:

The Jewish law being mentioned is ancient Jewish law, not modern day Jewish law.

Unfortunately there are examples of other ancient societies and even not so ancient societies not treating deaf-mutes well and also taking away legal rights from them.

Look here for a summary of how deaf-mutes were not treated or regarded well in the past.

ASLinfo.com » Deaf Culture - Information and resources related to American Sign Language (ASL), Interpreting and Deaf Culture

Some of the web sites' examples listed include:

* During some centuries some Christian leaders believed that the deaf-mutes could not be saved and were condemned to hell.

* In Spain during the Middle Ages deaf-mutes could not inherit property. Many families in the Spanish nobility had deaf children and hired tutors so that their children could learn enough speech to be able to defeat the laws and inherit property.

I'm pretty sure that no Christian leaders currently preach that deaf-mutes are condemned to hell just for being deaf-mutes. And is anyone aware of any current country, including modern day Spain or Israel, that doesn't allow deaf people to inherit property or own real estate? I hate to argue from incredibility -- but obviously it is simply far more difficult to to prove that something doesn't exist vs that something does exist.

My guess is that almost all societies in the ancient past and even not so ancient past (e.g., Spain in the Middle Ages) were guilty of treating deaf-mutes more poorly than they are treated now. And that over the centuries almost all societies improved their treatment of deaf-mutes including Christian, Jews and others.

(And as promised above here's my additional comment on Jewish law allowing deaf-mutes to marry and own moveable property despite their legal classification of being the same as minors: this probably reflects the transition of improving status and legal rights for deaf-mutes that seems to have occurred in many if not all societies over many centuries -- not just the Jewish one.)


Sources used:
DEAF AND DUMB IN JEWISH LAW - JewishEncyclopedia.com

(Below already listed)
Programs

ASLinfo.com » Deaf Culture - Information and resources related to American Sign Language (ASL), Interpreting and Deaf Culture (This last web site does not list its sources -- anyone know of a web site with similar information that does?)
 
Visualist - for want of one word (borrowed from PFH)
 
like that - visualist

I'm extremely visualist. I often use pictures in my mind to understand or reference something. I was trying to read some general written instructions the other day about something at the shelter and they weren't making sense. I'd seen the actual protocol modeled before but couldn't recall the visuals for all the steps, and without the pictures, I couldn't make sense of the directions.
 
no sense Why banned WFD now Banned Deaf mutes not fair!
 
Jazzberry said:
Despite being Jewish I can't really answer that question either, but I can make a few comments. The classification in ancient Jewish law (of deaf-mutes having the same legal status as minors which meant they could not be witnesses, own property or be considered liable for doing anything illegal as Deaf Caroline had noted earlier) basically falls under the domain of what is now considered secular law. So ... after the fall of ancient Israel (before 600 CE) this classification obviously must have had more impact in theoretical discussions and social status than in day to day life for Jewish people living outside of Israeli (known under various names in the past) boundaries over the centuries.

Its worth noting that despite this classification as minors it appears that deaf-mute people were allowed to get married and to also acquire and own movable property. I'll comment more on this later.

Is the ancient Jewish law part of present day Israeli law? I've googled pretty extensively and can find nothing about that one way or the other. I did find a web site for an organization called The Institute for the Advancement of Deaf Persons in Israel ( Programs) that had many of its web pages available in English (vs. Hebrew), including a web page listing their current projects. The bad news is that this organization is led by professionals in the field of deafness and not by deaf people. But if deaf people in modern day Israel were not able to be witnesses in court or own real estate, I would think I'd be able to find something about that on the web.

Lastly, I just want to make it clear that:

The Jewish law being mentioned is ancient Jewish law, not modern day Jewish law.

Unfortunately there are examples of other ancient societies and even not so ancient societies not treating deaf-mutes well and also taking away legal rights from them.

Look here for a summary of how deaf-mutes were not treated or regarded well in the past.

ASLinfo.com » Deaf Culture - Information and resources related to American Sign Language (ASL), Interpreting and Deaf Culture

Some of the web sites' examples listed include:

* During some centuries some Christian leaders believed that the deaf-mutes could not be saved and were condemned to hell.

* In Spain during the Middle Ages deaf-mutes could not inherit property. Many families in the Spanish nobility had deaf children and hired tutors so that their children could learn enough speech to be able to defeat the laws and inherit property.

I'm pretty sure that no Christian leaders currently preach that deaf-mutes are condemned to hell just for being deaf-mutes. And is anyone aware of any current country, including modern day Spain or Israel, that doesn't allow deaf people to inherit property or own real estate? I hate to argue from incredibility -- but obviously it is simply far more difficult to to prove that something doesn't exist vs that something does exist.

My guess is that almost all societies in the ancient past and even not so ancient past (e.g., Spain in the Middle Ages) were guilty of treating deaf-mutes more poorly than they are treated now. And that over the centuries almost all societies improved their treatment of deaf-mutes including Christian, Jews and others.

(And as promised above here's my additional comment on Jewish law allowing deaf-mutes to marry and own moveable property despite their legal classification of being the same as minors: this probably reflects the transition of improving status and legal rights for deaf-mutes that seems to have occurred in many if not all societies over many centuries -- not just the Jewish one.)


Sources used:
DEAF AND DUMB IN JEWISH LAW - JewishEncyclopedia.com

(Below already listed)
Programs

ASLinfo.com » Deaf Culture - Information and resources related to American Sign Language (ASL), Interpreting and Deaf Culture (This last web site does not list its sources -- anyone know of a web site with similar information that does?)
Click to expand...
The reason the jewish laws are of interest, is the role of judeaism as the religion christianity and islam got a lot of their ideas from. But I haven't seen any religion threat deaf people worse or better than otheres. Overall, it's several ways to interpret any holy scripture or law. Does mute mean without or with sign language? Christians had this discussion, like you mentioned with going to hell. Didn't mean to put down jews. One religion I want to challenge with deafness, is buddhism. They have some problems with their scriptures in my opinion.

Not sure if deaf people really got better rights during the centuries? The history has both, putting down deaf people, and threat them as equals.

Aristotles looked at deaf people as dumb, while Socrates claimed their language was equal to the spoken langages. Ancient Greek society wasn't overall so nice to "different" people, but egyptians threated them much better. Modern germans threat deaf horrible.

While you got doctors that drool over CI in Israel and mainstream/oralist fanatics in Tel Aviv, deaf people are allowed to serve in the army there(ok, perhaps more due to shortage of soldiers than human rights). The jews was the only ones that ran a full bilingual deaf school in germany, with good results, early in the 20th century, while the rest of germany was trapped in oralism.
 
Username said:
Basically, I think it is deaf people's fault that the word "hearing impaired" sound revolting and bad because of the way we sign it. In Australian Sign Language, how do we say hearing impaired in sign language? Hearing Fail. That how we sign it. So all deaf people suddenly compain about the name.

If we didn't invent the "Hearing Fail" sign for hearing impaired, we wouldn't complain.. I guess?
Click to expand...

We didn't invent it. It is a perfect transliteration of the word impaired.

Impaired = Fail.
 
BecLak said:
I think smithtr is thinking WFD are banning Deaf-'mutes' from attending - simple misunderstanding is all.
Click to expand...

Ohhh, so he's thinking they are 'doing' what was done at Milan 1880.....

instead of the terminology of deaf-mutes per se.

now i understand what he was trying to say...but indeed it was a misunderstanding between the 'dropping/abolishment' of the term/s (deaf-mute and hearing-impaired) and 'assumming' a repeat of events such as the one a actually occured in 1880.
 
flip said:
The reason the jewish laws are of interest, is the role of judeaism as the religion christianity and islam got a lot of their ideas from. But I haven't seen any religion threat deaf people worse or better than otheres. Overall, it's several ways to interpret any holy scripture or law. Does mute mean without or with sign language? Christians had this discussion, like you mentioned with going to hell. Didn't mean to put down jews. One religion I want to challenge with deafness, is buddhism. They have some problems with their scriptures in my opinion.

Not sure if deaf people really got better rights during the centuries? The history has both, putting down deaf people, and threat them as equals.

Aristotles looked at deaf people as dumb, while Socrates claimed their language was equal to the spoken langages. Ancient Greek society wasn't overall so nice to "different" people, but egyptians threated them much better. Modern germans threat deaf horrible.

While you got doctors that drool over CI in Israel and mainstream/oralist fanatics in Tel Aviv, deaf people are allowed to serve in the army there(ok, perhaps more due to shortage of soldiers than human rights). The jews was the only ones that ran a full bilingual deaf school in germany, with good results, early in the 20th century, while the rest of germany was trapped in oralism.
Click to expand...

I like what you saying, im learning quite a lot here, thanks Flip.....
 
Back
Top