Those who decide not to get a CI

Bottesini said:
"partially" How can you overlook that word in your own post?
Click to expand...

Ok .. how about this .. where would you draw the line between deaf and not deaf ?

I doubt you would consider someone with a 10 db loss @ 8khz deaf .. Even though in some situations that can be considered a partial lack of hearing.

is it 20 ?? 50 ?? 75 ?? 100 ??

Because pure tone does not include speech discrimination .. should we adjust it to be understanding speech ??

being able to tell the call of a <insert some bird> from that of a <inset some other bird>

I find it hard to believe that you can honestly say that , purely by performance , you classify someone that can understand spoken speech at a 'normal' conversational level while there back is turned as deaf.

Does it matter that they have a CI .. they have no lack of hearing for that situation.
 
deafbajagal said:
You also can use an electric saw while blindfolded. It isn't recommended though.
Click to expand...

I never said it was recomended ..

She said something about 'while sleeping' which I asked for clarification .. That is all.
 
Bottesini you have not answered the question I posed to you.
I really would like to hear/read your point of view.
 
cjg said:
Bottesini you have not answered the question I posed to you.
I really would like to hear/read your point of view.
Click to expand...

I call deaf if you can not discriminate speech. HOH if you have loss but can.
 
Bottesini said:
I call deaf if you can not discriminate speech. HOH if you have loss but can.
Click to expand...

So then the child that wears a pair of CI's but can understand spoken words at a 'normal' conversational level while her back is turned should not be considered deaf ?

Or does the fact that there is a CI involved/required mean 'deaf' ??

Is 'deaf' performance based ? or person based.

My point was that while wearing the CI's the term deaf is inaccurate because she can understand and process the sens of hearing properly for that situation.

That is where this whole this started from.

Again this is from a semantically view not a cultural one.
 
Last edited:
cjg said:
So then the child that wears a pair of CI's but can understand spoken words at a 'normal' conversational level should not be considered deaf ?

Or does the fact that there is a CI involved/required mean 'deaf' ??

Is 'deaf' performance based ? or person based.

My point was that while wearing the CI's the term deaf is inaccurate because she can understand and process the sens of hearing properly for that situation.

That is where this whole this started from.

Again this is from a semantically view not a cultural one.
Click to expand...

I meant unaided. So if she needs CI to hear, she is deaf.
 
TXgolfer said:
Wow.....and your aids still help? Seriously asking here.
Click to expand...

I have the same range of dB loss as hers...and my digital hearing aid does wonders. It SHOCKED me when I first tried it (I was skeptical) and now I'm like, WOW. I do need to go and have it tweaked, though. Some of the digital hearing aids out there are designed for people with profound hearing loss. Amazing, isn't it?
 
Bottesini said:
Thanks TX. I am old and getting tired and worried I will be asked to argue again.
Click to expand...

:lol:

That is basically when I started calling myself deaf.

Granted I can still have conversations one on one in a quiet setting if the person has a higher pitch voice and will speak up and it's a good day. But once I was unable to have a conversation with most people in general I started saying I was deaf.
 
PMs are not allowed before 50 posts. We all know Botts has well more than that, and has been around more than long enough to know how PMs work.

I'm going to ignore dictionary definitions of deafness when we all can define that ourselves. For me, I know that FJ and Grendel and I don't see eye-to-eye on everything, but we even agree that their children and people like Botts, myself, and many others, call ourselves deaf, dictionary definition or not.
 
Back
Top