CI 'war' over peace declared

Passivist

New Member
Hi folks

Been away a while computer issues etc, Here in the old U of K we're pretty much in agreement the anti-CI campaigns by (D)eaf are over :cuddle: . Signs of desperation came via a UK (D)eaf program where in desperation to illicit interest, they claimed the (D)eaf ant-CI campaign ranked alongside Martin Luther King's (Despite the fact CI are widely used now, and it's users accepted here), which was felt that even for the deaf activist was one claim too far.

Is it not time the USA joined with the rest of the World and stopped these Anti-CI and Anti-hearing aid things ? It's hardly showing America as a place where choice is really accepted, and inclusion a norm is it ? The world has moved on (At least for most !), (D)eaf should concentrate on things that are relative to them, since enforced implantation was never an option in the first place. Frankly some of the responses I've read here show quite a low awareness of what CI's actually do and don't too. I read one deafie stating he wouldn't have one because he was afraid rain would 'leak' through the 'hole' :-o

Implanatation will not affect the deaf way in any forseeable way, was it all sour grapes and based on the belief deaf would 'hear' and thus sign and deaf culture would die ? didn't work that way did it ? How long before anti-CI people the world over accept,it was a campaign that they never had any real chance of success winning ?
 

DeafSCUBA98

Active Member
i second that too.. i read this morning.. i was like huh.. okay, i was hoping someone post something to clear this thread out
 

Boult

Active Member
Let's see if I can help eh...
Below is my assumed adapted posting of the first posting to clarify (make it more clear what the writer is trying to tell us.)

Let me know if that's what supposed to say or whatever.. eh
===========================

CI "WAR" is over and Peace is Declared!

Hi folks

Been away a while computer issues etc...

Here in the old U of K (United Kingdom) we're pretty much in agreement that the anti-CI campaigns by (D)eaf are over .

Signs of desperation came via a UK (D)eaf program where in desperation to incite interests, they claimed that the (D)eaf ant-CI campaign ranked alongside Martin Luther King's (Despite the fact that CI are widely used now, and it's users are accepted here), which was felt that even for the deaf activist was one claim too far.

Is it time for USA to join with the rest of the World and stop these Anti-CI and Anti-hearing aid things?

America is hardly showing as a place where choice is widely accepted, and isn't inclusion is considered a norm?

The world has moved on (At least for most !), (D)eaf should concentrate on things that are relative to them, since enforced implantation was never an option in the first place.

Frankly, some of the responses I've read here show quite a low awareness of what CI's actually do and don't. I read one deafie stating he wouldn't have one because he was afraid rain would 'leak' through the 'hole'

Implantation will not affect the deaf way in any foreseeable way, was it all sour grapes and based on the belief that deaf would 'hear' and thus sign and deaf culture would die? That didn't work that way, did it?

How long before anti-CI people all over the world accept that it was a campaign that they never had any real chance of successes?


==================
Not sure if the writer wanted this word "illicit" in 3rd paragraph? does the writer tries to mean "gather" interests instead of "ban" interests? I am thinking the writer wants to say "incite" instead ?


Dictionary

illicit |i(l)?lisit| |?(l)?l?s1t| |??l?s?t|
adjective
forbidden by law, rules, or custom : illicit drugs | illicit sex.
DERIVATIVES
illicitly |?(l)?l?s1tli| adverb
illicitness |?(l)?l?s1tn1s| noun
ORIGIN early 16th cent.: from French, or from Latin illicitus, from in- ‘not’ + licitus (see licit ).



Thesaurus

illicit
adjective
1 illicit drugs illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, criminal, felonious; outlawed, banned, forbidden, prohibited, proscribed; unlicensed, unauthorized, unsanctioned; contraband, black-market, bootleg; Law malfeasant. antonym lawful, legal.
2 an illicit love affair taboo, forbidden, impermissible, unacceptable, adulterous; secret, clandestine, furtive. antonym aboveboard.




Dictionary

incite |in?s?t| |1n?sa?t| |?n?s??t|
verb [ trans. ]
encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior) : the offense of inciting racial hatred.
• urge or persuade (someone) to act in a violent or unlawful way : he incited loyal subjects to rebellion.
DERIVATIVES
incitation |?ins??t? sh ?n| |?n?sa??te???n| |??ns??te???n| |-?te??(?)n| noun
incitement |1n?sa?tm?nt| noun
inciter |1n?sa?d?r| noun
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from French inciter, from Latin incitare, from in- ‘toward’ + citare ‘rouse.’
THE RIGHT WORDarouse, exhort, foment, incite, instigate, provoke
The best way to start a riot is to incite one, which means to urge or stimulate to action, either in a favorable or an unfavorable sense.
If you instigate an action, however, it implies that you are responsible for initiating it and that the purpose is probably a negative or evil one :) the man who instigated the assassination plot).
Foment suggests agitation or incitement over an extended period of time :) foment a discussion; foment the rebellion that leads to war). An instigator, in other words, is someone who initiates the idea, while a fomenter is someone who keeps it alive.
You can provoke a riot in the same way that you instigate one, but the emphasis here is on spontaneity rather than on conscious design :) her statement provoked an outcry from animal rights activists).
To arouse is to awaken a feeling or elicit a response :) my presence in the junkyard aroused suspicion), or to open people's eyes to a situation ( | we attempted to arouse public awareness).
But once you've aroused people, you may have to exhort them, meaning to urge or persuade them, by appealing to their sympathy or conscience, to take constructive action.



Thesaurus

incite
verb
1 we're hoping that last night's incident will not incite altercations in the stadium today stir up, whip up, encourage, fan the flames of, stoke up, fuel, kindle, ignite, inflame, stimulate, instigate, provoke, excite, arouse, awaken, inspire, engender, trigger, spark off, ferment, foment; literary enkindle. antonym suppress.
2 she incited him to commit murder egg on, encourage, urge, goad, provoke, spur on, drive, stimulate, push, prod, prompt, induce, impel; arouse, rouse, excite, inflame, sting, prick; informal put up to. antonym discourage, deter.
THE RIGHT WORDincite, arouse, exhort, foment, instigate, provoke
The best way to start a riot is to incite one, which means to urge or stimulate to action, either in a favorable or an unfavorable sense. If you instigate an action, however, it implies that you are responsible for initiating it and that the purpose is probably a negative or evil one :) the man who instigated the assassination plot). Foment suggests agitation or incitement over an extended period of time ( | foment a discussion; foment the rebellion that leads to war). An instigator, in other words, is someone who initiates the idea, while a fomenter is someone who keeps it alive. You can provoke a riot in the same way that you instigate one, but the emphasis here is on spontaneity rather than on conscious design ( | her statement provoked an outcry from animal rights activists). To arouse is to awaken a feeling or elicit a response ( | my presence in the junkyard aroused suspicion), or to open people's eyes to a situation ( | we attempted to arouse public awareness). But once you've aroused people, you may have to exhort them, meaning to urge or persuade them, by appealing to their sympathy or conscience, to take constructive action.
 

Passivist

New Member
Erm.... like DUH ! (Could someone send me an American to English dictionary please !).

In my country (Which incidentally developed the language you try to use), it is the view the campaigns against CI implantations have failed (Indeed NOT), succeeded. (Are we OK so far ?)

AND, the emergence of a Hearing-Impaired 'community' and 'culture' is ongoing (Erm... is that OK ?). :shock:

I can write in large capitals if it also helps ! No wonder the (D)eaf lost this one !

Where WOULD you lot be without Google !
 

javapride

New Member
weather they have CI or not its thier body simple said simple done.... walk away before this gets ugly by others......
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
In my country (Which incidentally developed the language you try to use), it is the view the campaigns against CI implantations have failed (Indeed NOT), succeeded. (Are we OK so far ?)
WRONG.....BSL is UNRELATED to ASL...it's closer to French Sign language!
AND, the emergence of a Hearing-Impaired 'community' and 'culture' is ongoing (Erm... is that OK ?).
Culture changes and evolves. Back in the '30's a lot of Deafie leaders were against hearing aids for the same reasons!
CIs are getting to be a lot more accepted....they aren't totally accepted, yes, but that's b/c some people (some advocates!) push it as a miricle cure...(Bree, Hear Again can I have an Amen on this?)
I can write in large capitals if it also helps ! No wonder the (D)eaf lost this one !
Excuse me, but are you one of those people who are all supieror b/c you were (supposedly) better educated then those poor wittle Signers? Not all of those poorly educated kids are Signers....many of them include oral kids as well! Yes, not everyone here can articulate themselves well in 100% fluent English grammar, but would you be able to articulate yourself 100% in French/Spanish/whatever second language you chose? I bet if you wrote something in another language that you had some fluencey in , a native speaker would be like "Was that written by someone who actually KNOWS the language?"
 

Oceanbreeze

New Member
deafdyke said:
WRONG.....BSL is UNRELATED to ASL...it's closer to French Sign language!

Culture changes and evolves. Back in the '30's a lot of Deafie leaders were against hearing aids for the same reasons!
CIs are getting to be a lot more accepted....they aren't totally accepted, yes, but that's b/c some people (some advocates!) push it as a miricle cure...(Bree, Hear Again can I have an Amen on this?)

Excuse me, but are you one of those people who are all supieror b/c you were (supposedly) better educated then those poor wittle Signers? Not all of those poorly educated kids are Signers....many of them include oral kids as well! Yes, not everyone here can articulate themselves well in 100% fluent English grammar, but would you be able to articulate yourself 100% in French/Spanish/whatever second language you chose? I bet if you wrote something in another language that you had some fluencey in , a native speaker would be like "Was that written by someone who actually KNOWS the language?"
I'm fully hearing, but I had to laugh at this! I know that my opinion may not carry much weight given my hearing status, but I have to agree with Deafdyke's last point! It really doesn't matter whether someone is deaf, HoH or hearing. There are many reasons for why someone might have trouble expressing themselves in writing. I'm one of those people. I'm fully hearing, and I've got a HS education. I also happen to have learning disabilities that make it difficult for me to express myself in writing. I write as well as I can, correcting mistakes as I go along, and hope for the best.

It really is uncool to imply someone is stupid merely because they are deaf. Do that once too often, and you might just eat your words.
 

darkangel8603

New Member
Passivist said:
Erm.... like DUH ! (Could someone send me an American to English dictionary please !).

In my country (Which incidentally developed the language you try to use), it is the view the campaigns against CI implantations have failed (Indeed NOT), succeeded. (Are we OK so far ?)

AND, the emergence of a Hearing-Impaired 'community' and 'culture' is ongoing (Erm... is that OK ?). :shock:

I can write in large capitals if it also helps ! No wonder the (D)eaf lost this one !

Where WOULD you lot be without Google !
are you implying that us deaf and hh people of canada and america is dumb?? GUESS AGAIN MISTER!
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
AND, the emergence of a Hearing-Impaired 'community' and 'culture'
There's no hearing impaired culture.....absolutly none...Most folks who ID as hearing impaired strongly ID with the hearing world...there's no real culture....it's basicly just Hearing Health 101!!!
 

Cjanik

New Member
Passivist said:
Erm.... like DUH ! (Could someone send me an American to English dictionary please !).

In my country (Which incidentally developed the language you try to use), it is the view the campaigns against CI implantations have failed (Indeed NOT), succeeded. (Are we OK so far ?)

AND, the emergence of a Hearing-Impaired 'community' and 'culture' is ongoing (Erm... is that OK ?). :shock:

I can write in large capitals if it also helps ! No wonder the (D)eaf lost this one !

Where WOULD you lot be without Google !

i find this kind of funny.

while i am deaf....I also have a cochlear implant, so i guess that makes me HoH?

but anyway, you seem to be saying those who cant speak or communicate with the hearing community, are stupid and dont understand you because they are too dumb to do so.

let me tell you this...I have spent the last 15 years of my life in school/college in all hearing classes without an interpreter/notetaker.

and im not trying to be mean, but im telling you, your use of english is LOUSY. Your giving me the impression that you are the stupid one here. learn to speak english properly before you accuse certain deaf people of being stupid, it makes your credibility invalid.

:crazy:
 

darkangel8603

New Member
but anyway, you seem to be saying those who cant speak or communicate with the hearing community, are stupid and dont understand you because they are too dumb to do so.

let me tell you this...I have spent the last 15 years of my life in school/college in all hearing classes without an interpreter/notetaker.

and im not trying to be mean, but im telling you, your use of english is LOUSY. Your giving me the impression that you are the stupid one here. learn to speak english properly before you accuse certain deaf people of being stupid, it makes your credibility invalid.
that is what i meant.. His first post was sooo unclear and hes go around calling us dumb, geee
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
I know exactly what you mean....a lot of oral deaf kids can't even articulate themselves well in written English. You look at the syntax and grammer...and are like "Huh?" Then again....a lot of oral deaf in the UK are like this...they act all supeior b/c they were orally educated...they think that oral education is the best in the world...and they can barely be understood!
 

Boult

Active Member
Remember British English are somewhat different from American english. for example Torch in british is flashlight in american. Elevator in british is escalator in american. Fag in british is cigarette butt in american. and so forth.

If you have Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English ( http://www.ldoceonline.com/ ) , you will find those in there. I often wondered why NTID required me to buy that dictionary instead of american dictionary eh.. (reason is simplified definition than american dictionary like webster collegiate dictionary which has complex definition that make you go thru lots of words to finally understand what the first word actually meant! And their system of showing pronunciation is lousy while American dictionary like Webster is better at showing it)
 

Passivist

New Member
Whoops anti-CI alert !

There was no intention to be disparaging against (D)eaf people, but obviously there seemed a lack of understanding to my first posting (Which I believed was clear enough but obviously wasn't), which got responded to by a barrage of dictionary quotations, so I over-simplified which caused further offense. I only mentioned BSL in CONTEXT (As a sign language), so only in relevance as it belongs to a 'community' who used it, and generally identified as anti-CI.

It wasn't a dig at those (D)eaf who have issues with English either (Not that I've seen that many here to be honest). NO HI culture ? I disagree. We are NOT hearing, so the difference is there, for those with severe loss or acquired deafness again, we are NOT hearing culture, we were neither here nor there. The topic was to suggest that after all this time the HoH and acquired deaf are now assuming such an individual identity, which is neither hearing nor (D)eaf and taking this forward.

Let's drop the false 'I'm offending deafies' stance, this wasn't the case, perhaps over simplifying my statement made it look that way, it wasn't intended.

Have a nice day !
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
We are NOT hearing, so the difference is there, for those with severe loss or acquired deafness again, we are NOT hearing culture, we were neither here nor there. The topic was to suggest that after all this time the HoH and acquired deaf are now assuming such an individual identity, which is neither hearing nor (D)eaf and taking this forward.
Ummm.....being culturaly Deaf has NOTHING to do with decible loss. I have a moderately severe loss in both ears, but I (and a lot of other people here who are hoh, including Levonian who has UNILATERAL loss! ) STRONGLY ID as Deaf. What I mean by there being no hearing impaired culture, is just that! There is NONE. Organizations like SHHH and AG Bell encourage assimulation into the hearing society at all costs..... Yes, a lot of us can hear, and that experiance isn't the same as someone with NO hearing, who does not speak.However, nereologically we don't hear the way a hearing person hears. We are also VERY Deaf too....we're not more hearing then deaf....we are also Deaf too....many of us with a lot of residual hearing are VISUAL people....haven't you read up on Ben Bahan's theory that we should ID as Seeing people rather then as Deaf or hoh?
 

Audiofuzzy

Well-Known Member
I wonder why would an organization that suppose to support the deaf people and their needs would do something like that- a rally against CI.
That makes me thinks people who rallied doesn't understand what exactly is CI and what it can do.

My second thought, as a backyard psychologist- it's a fear of unknown.
Those who don't really get what CI is and can do are 'ahead' afraid of it..hence the rejection. People tend to reject what they don't understand.

And, third - a person who's declared "deaf" may be afraid of losing this status once the CI is implanted. Wrong- the deaf will remain deaf until the end of his days. You may have CI, you may hear better but you are still deaf..

deaf with better crutches, that's all...


Fuzzy
 
Top