Implants....Y'all Hear?

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike McConnell

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
In a previous article Mike McConnell
<mike_mcconn...@hotmail.com.invalid>
writes: :
>>That is because you used the wrong definition of "fittest".
>>You don't understand. You **THINK** it is the wrong definition
>>when in :fact it is correct as I have defined it earlier where
>>"fittess" connotes healthiness, constitution, and strength which
>>are some the :desirable qualities for a specie to survive in an
>>environment.

>No no. I **KNOW** my definition is the best I have came across
>because it requires no exceptions when describing what actually
>happens in nature. It is the best description
>fitting the nature known so far.

Again, only to you do you think it is the best. I've already
demostrated the weakness in attempting to correalate
"survival" with "fittest. And also how "fittest" is not
a guarantee to pass along genes which can be an exception as it can
actually happen in nature. "Fittest" may be the only "best" description
but it doesn't give a complete picture on how all evolutionary paths
are evolved and hence the word, "fittest", is incomplete.

This case is closed. Sorry hombre. No more replies from me.

>>>And there you go, once you started using the wrong definition you
>>>ended up having to
>>>make all those exceptions to the rule in order to describe what
>>>actually happens in nature.

>>No. It only takes one example to make "survival of the fittest"
>>entirely moot and unacepptable. I just pointed them out.

>Wrong. All you did was to point out that there has to be an
>exception when you tried to use a wrong definition of "fittest".
>Show me an exception when the fittest is defined:
>fittest is what we call those who survived.

Again, "fittest" doesn't complete the picture just as
"survival of the fittest" doesn't complete the picture when
simply surviving doesn't guarantee the passing of the genes.
"Reproduction of the fittest" improves the picture but then
again "fittest" doesn't guarantee that reproduction will
take place. "Fittest" doesn't always mean those who
survived. It is the *general* idea that "fittest" is what
we call those who survived in nature. It's a general rule
not an absolute rule.

No more to be said.

>>>evolution is defined to be a change in allele frequency in a
>>>population over time. It is also that simple.

>>No it isn't that smple. Having alternative traits to be passed
>>on down :the evolutionary path isn't exactly at the same concept
>>level when ;humans can **create** their own evolutionary consequences
>>which can :make or break their own evolutionary paths by
>>attempting at planning ;and steer their own evolutionary
>>developments or simply nuking themselves out of existence.
>>Evolutionary concepts for humans are ;different than for non-human
>>biological entities solely because of our :intellectual capacity
>>to make a difference in our evolutionary progress.

>It is still just a change in allele frequency in the population.
>No exceptions needed.

Only from a biological viewpoint does it describes evolution as
it occurs in *nature*. The evolution of humans is now no longer
to be constrained by their own genes for evolutionary development
when the possibility of a machine/human interface will change
how evolution occurs in humans, for example. Only then
will a change in allele frequency not be the only description
for human evolutionary development. Exceptions are needed between
human and non-human biological entities.

Case closed. Sorry hombre. No more replies after this.

>>> Simply being able to change over time, law becomes the one that ;
>>> ultimately decides to allow or to deny parents' decisions.

>>In the meantime there is no law baring parents from deciding for their
>>child on CI. In fact, the majority of society endorsed the idea in the
>>first place allowing the opportunity for those who may benefit from
>>CI.

>There doesn't need to be a law barring something in order for the
>system of law be the one that ultimately decides whether that
>something is legal or not. The fact that there can be a law barring
>it suffices.

It can become a law but in the *meantime* there is no law saying parents
can't decide for their child concerning CI. Simple.
I'm not going to go over this again nor will I bother to read your
response or make any more future replies concerning this one.

If you don't like my responses...tough guana.

>>>Which has nothing to do with whether it is law that ultimately
>>>decides
>>>whether parents are allowed to give CI to their children. By simply
>>>having the potential to change, it becomes one that ultimately
>>>decides.

>>Absolutely wrong. Not until it becomes a law does it **either**
>>ultimately decides for the parents or give the parents the right
>>to ultimately decide for their child.

>No no.

Yes yes.

>When it becomes law is when it choose to render a blanket
>judgement.

Which is also an ultimate decision by society for the time being. Laws
are challenged and changed all the time.

>Before it becomes law, it is merely the decision of the legal system
>to agree with parents' decisions.

..and still it goes that parents have the right to decide concerning
CI for children. There is nothing you nor society can do about it
until a law barring CI for deaf children is enacted.

>Hence in all cases the parents do not have the complete right to decide
>for their children, as the rest of the society expect the rights of the
>children to be respected.

I have been discussing about CI for kids and how the parents have
the right to decide in that in the first place. You keep bringing
up other problems about parents' "rights" under hypothetical
situations which could very well warrant a jailing. You've made
numerous attempts in alluding that decisions by parents
concerning CI for their child is on par to that of parents
supposed right in abusing their child. You keep changing
the topic about parents' rights to decide on a CI for their child
and made it into an "abuse" issue.

I have never, not once, stated that parents have a complete right
to decide for their children under every conceivable instances.
There are exceptions to be understood and that's crucial. You
take me for a fool and insult every parents, including me,
about how we cannot decide what's best for our children given
the circumstances. Each case is different depending on what is
allowed or not according to the law (or a lack of it) regarding
the care and decision for our children.

This is my last response to you concerning this matter.
Tough guano hombre if you don't like it.


>>>I can be "Deaf" (which I am not), but as a hoh person, I
>>>cannot even be "deaf". I do not truely know what it is like
>>>to drive and not hear my :car engine back fire.

>>*....and you therby lack the experience of what Deaf/deaf culture
>>is like and are relegated to the hearing world.

>Of course, and I do not tell deaf people what to do.

Believe or not you have been doing that. You may not
realize it but you are no matter how careful you
try to choose your words.

>Instead, I talk about the responsibilities for members
>of a society that values fairness.

.and in a sense excommunicate every parents who don't
go by your outline based on your perceived values on
what to be construed as fair and not fair as if
you have the answer to everything.


From post #179...
>>>Well, that is not the same as having said something false
>>>or wrong, is ;it? Truth is not determined by consensus.

>>But you're attempting at that anyway with your opinions on
>>what you :*think truth might be, exclaiming that others are
>>wrong, and saying ;*things like society "ultimately" decides
>> by a consense vote which in :*itself tries to imply a certain
>>"truth" to it when it might not ;*be in the first place.

>No no. I specifically said that truth about what the
>informed decision a child might make if he could make it,
>cannot be known for sure.

I know. I know what you said. I'm talking about other inferred
"truths".

> But to respect a child's right to such a decision, we have
> to instead excercise diligence, for that is the best we can do.

And again, which is what many parents do under the circumstances
when deciding what's best for the child.

> And the society has the right to intercede when it decides
> the parents has failed to respect their children's rights.
> No truth implied,

..and avoid any ideas or acknowledgements that parents do
have the right to decide what's best for their child under
the given circumstances. Yes. You've made some implications
about "truths" when it comes to parents' rights.
Children have rights as do parents. Children cannot always
decide things for themselves and so it is left up to the
parents to decide for them the best they can.

> just rights -- for neither the parents
> nor other members of the society can know for sure the truth.

.and so it leaves the parents to decide under the given
circumstances as allowed by law (or even the lack of it).
Case closed.

>Making me a hearing person
>will make me a more "average" person, and if I believe an average
>person is a worse person than I am now, then, statically speaking
>(and this is where the big :-) belongs), I should be more likely to
>become, in my view, a worse person if I had better hearing. But
>for others to fear my becoming hearing for the same flawed logic,
>they must necessarily think I am a very nice person to start with.
>Nothing wrong with that.

..and, again, imply that curing deafness will cause them to
become a worser person - statistically speaking, of course, in
your case. If this wasn't your meaning then you
should've have stated that in the first place. Otherwise it's
such a negative outlook.


from post #180...

>>>Since very little of what I have said has been shown to
>>>be wrong, the fact that some people think I look foolish
>>>probably say more about those people than ;it does about me.

>>A very arrogant statement with no hint of humility indeed.
>>You may think you're correct in many of the arguments and
>>since arguments are, at times, about opinions. Opinions are
>>neither right nor wrong. Just because you believe that your
>>arguments haven't been shown to be wrong doesn't mean what you
>>say is right.

>I said "have not been shown false",

I know.

>I did not say "it is the truth".

I know. I talked about "right" and "wrong" and nothing
was said about "truth".

>The importance of "not been shown false" is that,
> "not been shown false" despite numerous and repeated
>attempts to challenge it

Only because you *think* yours is the correct one when the
possibility of your version was in fact has already shown
to be false alot more than you think but you refuse to see
it or are in denial. You're still proclaiming your arrogance
without any hint of humility.

>is usually as close as we can get to any truth.

No..not "we" but "close as I can get to any of my perceived
truth" which it is in your case.


You need to get out of the lab more often. Ciao or kill-filed.


* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
In a previous article Mike McConnell <mike_mcconn...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes:
:
;>No no. I **KNOW** my definition is the best I have came across

:>because it requires no exceptions when describing what actually
;>happens in nature. It is the best description
:>fitting the nature known so far.
;
:Again, only to you do you think it is the best. I've already
;demostrated the weakness in attempting to correalate
:"survival" with "fittest.

There is no weakness. Correlation is 100%. The fittest *IS* what we
call the ones who survived. It is merely in your mistaken definition
that you take fittest to be what you thought aught to be, and hence the
descrepancy with what actually survived. And of course it is not a
complete picture -- it describes only the environment part of it. The
picture is complete when you combine it with the part that is about the
population itself -- reproducing organisms with inheritable and mutatable
traits.

:This case is closed. Sorry hombre. No more replies from me.

And without showing there to be any exceptions needed. That is fine
with me.

:>It is still just a change in allele frequency in the population.


;>No exceptions needed.
:
;Only from a biological viewpoint does it describes evolution as
:it occurs in *nature*. The evolution of humans is now no longer
;to be constrained by their own genes for evolutionary development
:when the possibility of a machine/human interface will change
;how evolution occurs in humans, for example. Only then
:will a change in allele frequency not be the only description
;for human evolutionary development. Exceptions are needed between
:human and non-human biological entities.
;
:Case closed. Sorry hombre. No more replies after this.

There is no requirements that alleles be genes to be found on DNA.
It just has to be something that is replicated, inheritable, and
mutable. Still no exceptions here.

:>There doesn't need to be a law barring something in order for the


;>system of law be the one that ultimately decides whether that
:>something is legal or not. The fact that there can be a law barring
;>it suffices.
:
;It can become a law but in the *meantime* there is no law saying parents
:can't decide for their child concerning CI. Simple.
;I'm not going to go over this again nor will I bother to read your
:response or make any more future replies concerning this one.
;
:If you don't like my responses...tough guana.

Law right now is deciding to agree with the parents. That means law is
ultimately the one that decides. Parents don't have complete freedom to
decide until it is the case where law isn't even allowed to decide whether
to accept or reject parents' decisions.

;I have been discussing about CI for kids and how the parents have


:the right to decide in that in the first place. You keep bringing
;up other problems about parents' "rights" under hypothetical
:situations which could very well warrant a jailing. You've made
;numerous attempts in alluding that decisions by parents
:concerning CI for their child is on par to that of parents
;supposed right in abusing their child. You keep changing
:the topic about parents' rights to decide on a CI for their child
;and made it into an "abuse" issue.

Until you can draw a line dividing CI and abuse, the two are the same
subject.

;>Instead, I talk about the responsibilities for members


:>of a society that values fairness.
;
:.and in a sense excommunicate every parents who don't
;go by your outline based on your perceived values on
:what to be construed as fair and not fair as if
;you have the answer to everything.

You are free to show in what way what I said is wrong or unreasonable.

;> And the society has the right to intercede when it decides


:> the parents has failed to respect their children's rights.
;> No truth implied,
:
;..and avoid any ideas or acknowledgements that parents do
:have the right to decide what's best for their child under
;the given circumstances.

Parents are part of the society. They have a share in that decision
just like everybody else. I thought that was clear.

Yes. You've made some implications
:about "truths" when it comes to parents' rights.
;Children have rights as do parents. Children cannot always
:decide things for themselves and so it is left up to the
;parents to decide for them the best they can.

No no. It is left up to the parents and the rest of the society to a
greater or lesser extend. This is indicated by the fact that we do make
law that decides for the parents what is permissible and what is not.

;> just rights -- for neither the parents


:> nor other members of the society can know for sure the truth.
;
:.and so it leaves the parents to decide under the given
;circumstances as allowed by law (or even the lack of it).
:Case closed.

Yes, currently the law is deciding to accept the parents' decision.
Until it is the case where law can't even decide to do that, parents
do not have the sole right to decide.

:>Making me a hearing person


;>will make me a more "average" person, and if I believe an average
:>person is a worse person than I am now, then, statically speaking
;>(and this is where the big :-) belongs), I should be more likely to
:>become, in my view, a worse person if I had better hearing. But
;>for others to fear my becoming hearing for the same flawed logic,
:>they must necessarily think I am a very nice person to start with.
;>Nothing wrong with that.
:
;..and, again, imply that curing deafness will cause them to
:become a worser person - statistically speaking, of course, in
;your case.

Only for the purpose of the joke, yes.

;>I did not say "it is the truth".


:
;I know. I talked about "right" and "wrong" and nothing
:was said about "truth".

Is there a difference? If I say "this is right", I am saying "this is
right" is true, am I not?

:>The importance of "not been shown false" is that,


;> "not been shown false" despite numerous and repeated
:>attempts to challenge it
;
:Only because you *think* yours is the correct one when the
;possibility of your version was in fact has already shown
:to be false alot more than you think but you refuse to see
;it or are in denial. You're still proclaiming your arrogance
:without any hint of humility.

You are free to show them to be false. "case closed" without showing it
false doesn't cut it.

:>is usually as close as we can get to any truth.


;
:No..not "we" but "close as I can get to any of my perceived
;truth" which it is in your case.

Please explain what you mean. Every productive challenge elminiates from
the possibility space a region where truth is not found. Hence every
challenge gives us a more focused picture of where the truth must lie.
That is how science works.

Deafmisc

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:

>Law right now is deciding to agree with the parents. That means law is
>ultimately the one that decides. Parents don't have complete freedom to
>decide until it is the case where law isn't even allowed to decide whether
>to accept or reject parents' decisions.

Are you implying that do you really think they ought to establish a law,
forbidding parents to make a decision to have their hearing-impaired child to
have a cochlear implant, etc ?

If that's the case, does the same go for any other type of surgery ? For
instance, how about to having widsom teeth pulled out of the children's mouth ?

What about surgery helping their child to walk better or see better, etc ?
Should those be forbidden too ?

Makes me wonder, why all this hostility towards "parents" ? How did yours treat
you ? Huh ?

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
In a previous article deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) writes:
:

;In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:
:
;>Law right now is deciding to agree with the parents. That means law is
:>ultimately the one that decides. Parents don't have complete freedom to
;>decide until it is the case where law isn't even allowed to decide whether
:>to accept or reject parents' decisions.
;
:Are you implying that do you really think they ought to establish a law,
;forbidding parents to make a decision to have their hearing-impaired child to
:have a cochlear implant, etc ?

I am saying due diligence requires that we take seriously the opinions of
those adults who were once these same children. If it takes law to get
the parents to take those opinions seriously, then that is the instrument
by which the society should makes it happen.

:If that's the case, does the same go for any other type of surgery ? For


;instance, how about to having widsom teeth pulled out of the children's mouth ?
:
;What about surgery helping their child to walk better or see better, etc ?
:Should those be forbidden too ?

That will depend on the opinions of the adults who are now able to make
informed decisions and who were once those same children. Do they now
by any large numbers disapprove of their parents' removal of their wisdom
teeth while they were still children?

HOH Joan

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
>Back then, people did not know what's best for the deaf. Nowaday, as
>more deaf are speaking out, more and more people are learning sign
>language. Dramatic improvement, eh?


I do not want to be counted as deaf as long as my hearing aid helps to keep me
hard of hearing. I consider sign language a round about way of getting your
education and information. I would prefer to follow enhanced oralism which is
based on the auditory version and the visual version based on the sound of each
vowel and consonant that make up words based on the English language. Enhanced
oralism includes everything such as Cued Speech, speechreading, assistive
listening systems, captioning of all kinds, and better hearing aids. Sign
language such as ASL and SEE are not part of enhanced oralism because they do
not even give the visual version of EACH vowel and consonant that make up words
based on the English language.

Sincerely,
HOH Joan

Deafmisc

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:

>I am saying due diligence requires that we take seriously the opinions of
>those adults who were once these same children. If it takes law to get
>the parents to take those opinions seriously, then that is the instrument
>by which the society should makes it happen.

Again, you're only looking at things from one point of view. Assuming that all
deaf adults would be against
letting parents decide whether or not their hearing-impaired child should get a
Cochlear Implant, etc.

Did it ever occur to you that there are quite a number of deaf adults that are
thrilled or satisfied with their cochlear implants ? Weren't they once deaf
children too ? Or do those opinions don't count ? From the way your mind works,
I won't be suprised if you'll just disregard those opinions and in a biased way
only listen to those you'll want to listen to, etc.

Again, you only speak from the point of view as if all deaf people or deaf
adults are alike. That is assuming they all prefer sign language, do not want
to wear any hearing aids of any kind, etc, etc.

Did it ever occur to you that generally speaking, people are slow to accept
"changes" in the society ? For instance, it took a long time to eventually
convince different people, doctors or scholars, that the earth was round, etc.
But, eventually it came into acceptance.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps some "D"eaf people are resisting anything
that possibly "threatens" their culture ? In another word, to some extent, they
may let the emotions get the best of them. And automatically go against
anything that does not support their cultural identity or pride, etc. Even if
facts or theories shows that it would be more realistic, helpful or
constructive to go in a different direction than they want you to.

I have a good question for you, why this "zealous" attitude about cochlear
implants or letting parents decide for their children ? Do you have a
"personal" stake involved in here ? You said, you're only hard of hearing to
begin with. So, you must be doing some interacting with the "hearing" people to
begin with ? Are you exclusively involved with the Deaf Culture 100 % ? How are
you living your life now, etc ?

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
In a previous article deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) writes:
:
;In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:
:
;>I am saying due diligence requires that we take seriously the opinions of
:>those adults who were once these same children. If it takes law to get
;>the parents to take those opinions seriously, then that is the instrument
:>by which the society should makes it happen.
;
:Again, you're only looking at things from one point of view. Assuming
;that all deaf adults would be against letting parents decide whether or
:not their hearing-impaired child should get a Cochlear Implant, etc.

It does not have to be unanimous. In order to be diligent in determining
what it is the children would decide if they could make informed decisions,
we look at the majority opinion of those adults who were deaf as children.
The greater the majority, the more important the opinion is.

;Did it ever occur to you that generally speaking, people are slow to accept


:"changes" in the society ? For instance, it took a long time to eventually
;convince different people, doctors or scholars, that the earth was round, etc.
:But, eventually it came into acceptance.

That means when the children grow up, they are more likely to think the
same as the deaf adults now who were deaf as children. Hence what those
adults want is a good guess of what the deaf children want if they can
make informed decisions. What they want may sounds wrong to you, but it
is their rights to want it.

:Did it ever occur to you that perhaps some "D"eaf people are resisting anything


;that possibly "threatens" their culture ? In another word, to some extent, they
:may let the emotions get the best of them. And automatically go against
;anything that does not support their cultural identity or pride, etc. Even if
:facts or theories shows that it would be more realistic, helpful or
;constructive to go in a different direction than they want you to.

That is their rights to be that way, too. It is the same right everybody
has. Just about every culture group reacts the same way to one thing or
another, but why is the reactions of Deaf people any less worthy than
those of the hearing?

;I have a good question for you, why this "zealous" attitude about cochlear


:implants or letting parents decide for their children ? Do you have a
;"personal" stake involved in here ? You said, you're only hard of hearing to
:begin with. So, you must be doing some interacting with the "hearing" people to
;begin with ? Are you exclusively involved with the Deaf Culture 100 % ? How are
:you living your life now, etc ?

As I have said before, I am not part of the Deaf culture. I don't share
the same background with those who are in the Deaf culture. I am surrounded
by people who knows to speak really loud when they are around me. I am
here merely to tell people that the rights of children has to be respected
when it comes to the question of CI for children.

Mike McConnell

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
Ah, don't worry about that. People like to side with one case to the
extreme and not allowing the flexibility to consider other things.
God forbid should those people ever have children. they probably
wouldn't know what to do about the child since they can't get the
information needed from the child should the child be able to so that
they can decide what to do next for that child. Many parents, try to
do things to the best of their ability to care for their
children and while others attempt at trying to make an exception to it.
You can always ignore or kill-file those with such linear thinking and
making things with such exceptions. I have a few kill-filed names so I
don't know what their responses are to my final ones.

I like that website about the new "CI" thing. Interesting to say the
least.

If I had a deaf child I wouldn't go for the CI thing. I perceive it
to be a risk as well as expensive, and not a guarantee that the child
will indeed hear something. Parents still have a right to decide,tho.

Others have kept saying that "Informed decision from a child if a child
could make it to help the parents decide about whatever" Yeah,
right..sheesh. Get with it folks. It's guesswork of how might
the child fare in life should one get a CI or none at all. Parents talk
alot about it and then finally decide and it's a tough one for many to
be sure. Child abuse..oh yeahhh..surrre..like with any other surgery
to be performed on a child is called "child abuse" which is not.

A potential "neglect"..perhaps but not child abuse which is carrying
thing to the extreme.

Mike McConnell

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
Deafmisc...post #192 was for you in response to your post#191 and not
for Wen. A mistake there.

.to be kill filed.

Roving Reporter

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to
On 18 Oct 1999 17:42:44 GMT, hoh...@aol.com (HOH Joan) took an
electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and scribbled:

Aren't we American today. Geez. This is an international group, can
you TRY to be less Americentric.

It's my personal experience and observation that in large part,
socialisation is the most important part of the experience. If that
goes through successfully, then the child will grow up accepting their
parents' decisions, but if it goes badly, then it REALLY goes badly.

I did not enjoy being the only HH child in my life. I would have loved
to have peers. I was very isolated because hearing aids did not help
me be "hearing" -- and by jr. high school, things went from bad to
horrid.

I'm very, very glad I'm not a child anymore, because it was a time of
powerlessness, helplessness, and fighting all the time, either
symbolically or actual fights with other kids.

Now, granted, mine was perhaps an extreme case, but this is why many,
many HH adults are angry with the way they grew up. There are also
some deaf people who came late to the Deaf community who are similarly
angry, and in both HH and deaf groups, may have suffered language
deficits as a result as well.

Just because YOU personally didn't come to harm does not ipse facto
mean it's a great method for everyone. I would prefer to use a method
that accounts for both the ones who don't make it with the oral method
as well as those who do.

That means every HH and Deaf child needs to learn both the majority
language and the sign language of their country, and both groups
should interact with each other during at least a portion of their
week.

Incidentally, the reason HH children should learn sign language is
that (a) not all remain HH, and (b) those that don't can raise their
self-esteem because they can move freely between both deaf and hearing
cultures. HH people need more help with self-esteem because they don't
have such a thing as "HH culture."

--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!

Mike McConnell

unread,
Oct 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/18/99
to


Sure there is a HH culture. Just because one isn't considered to be
profoundly or even severely deaf but HH and mingles with other HH
people which is considered to be a culture in its own way. Whether if
they gotten HH later in life or was born that way they share similar
problems in dealing with their level of hearing losses. People who are
born HH tend to find themselves straddling between two cultures, deaf
and hearing. And so they meet with other HH people to help establish an
identity of who they are.

Self-esteem is not entirely the problem. It's the identity complex
that HH has to deal with. My self-esteem was never in question while
growing up as HH person but only with my identity that needed to be
worked out. I was happy how I grew up as I listened and talked with
hearing and HH friends even though I never signed until much later into
my adulthood.

I've mingled with many other HH friends and used an amalgam of partial
and full signings while talking or just talking only. Sometimes we
sign only depending on the situation. We're an eclectic group which in
its own a way a HH culture.

John Campbell

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to

Mike McConnell <mike_mcconn...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>be sure. Child abuse..oh yeahhh..surrre..like with any other surgery
>to be performed on a child is called "child abuse" which is not.

Yeah, sure, if I was a doctor, I would perform surgery on my hearing
child, making him deaf so he would be the same like me.

>A potential "neglect"..perhaps but not child abuse which is carrying
>thing to the extreme.

A parents ignoring the child and keeping the child isolated which
resulted in language deficient of the child is not considered child
abuse? Again, I hope you are not agreeing with me.

Mike McConnell

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
John,

I'm not going to waste my time to respond when this matter was covered
several times throughout the 190+ postings. Go and scroll through them
if you're so darned fastidious about my writings. Go ahead a re-live
the entire posting episodes and wade through them. It's in there.

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
In a previous article Mike McConnell <mike_mcconn...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes:
:
;John,

:
;I'm not going to waste my time to respond when this matter was covered
:several times throughout the 190+ postings. Go and scroll through them
;if you're so darned fastidious about my writings. Go ahead a re-live
:the entire posting episodes and wade through them. It's in there.

Yes, and see again how Mike McConnell personally exemplifies a class-A
internet loser, who at the end sticks to a false accusation and then bury
his head in the sand. Parents has no right to decide? Who ever said
that? How does "parents do not have the sole right to decide" turn into
"parents has no right to decide" in his head? Any wonder how the thread
lasted so long?

Deafmisc

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su)

>Yes, and see again how Mike McConnell personally exemplifies a class-A


>internet loser, who at the end sticks to a false accusation and then bury
>his head in the sand.

Yeah sure, right. ? It just shows that you automatically go "against" anyone
that does a good job showing that maybe, maybe perhaps your way of thinking
isn't exactly 100 % fault-free all the time the way you make it out to be, etc.
And when the person does, you go around being a bad sport, calling him a loser,
etc ? Huh ?

At the same time, you said nothing when this one person was going around,
admitting that he thinks whoever disagrees with him must be on drugs. How come
you said nothing then ? I know why. Cause supposedly that person agrees with
you when you were saying bad things about Cochlear Implants, etc. Obviously,
you're playing favorites here, buddy !!!


Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
In a previous article deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) writes:
:
;In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su)

:
;>Yes, and see again how Mike McConnell personally exemplifies a class-A
:>internet loser, who at the end sticks to a false accusation and then bury
;>his head in the sand.
:
;Yeah sure, right. ? It just shows that you automatically go "against" anyone
:that does a good job showing that maybe, maybe perhaps your way of thinking
;isn't exactly 100 % fault-free all the time the way you make it out to be, etc.
:And when the person does, you go around being a bad sport, calling him a loser,
;etc ? Huh ?

He did what? He didn't show any of that. And at the end, he sticks to
a false accusation and then bury his head in the sand. That is not a
good sport. This is not a person who is trying to show flaws in my
reasoning. This is a person who just want to pick a fight, and I often
turn out looking like an easy target. His taking your side is merely
incidental. But this time he picked on someone he couldn't out-match.

;At the same time, you said nothing when this one person was going around,


:admitting that he thinks whoever disagrees with him must be on drugs. How come
;you said nothing then ? I know why. Cause supposedly that person agrees with
:you when you were saying bad things about Cochlear Implants, etc. Obviously,
;you're playing favorites here, buddy !!!

It was obvious John Campbell doesn't mean that literally. It was merely
an expression of his frustrations. The situation is different with Mike.
Besides, it is perfectly within my rights.

Mike McConnell

unread,
Oct 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/19/99
to
No. I didn't say that I'm agreeing with you nor did I say that am
disagreeing with you. You're not even making it clear on what you're
trying to say for me to agree or disagree.

I'm not the one who said it was child abuse like others have attempted
to say and go off on a tangent about parents getting jailed for
pummeling their child (which is clearly an abuse) because of their
"right" to decide their irresponsible action against that child and
make it sound like it is on par for children to get CI when parents
merely have the authority to decide about the operation. This is what I
found ludicrous in seeing those guys attempting/alluding at paralleling
that idea. The definition of "child abuse" is very subjective! Which
is why it is easier to after a potential "neglect" issue or none at all.

A kid at a supermarket gets an easy slap on the butt from his Mom just
so that she can get his attention from his misbehaving but others at
the supermarket would just happen to see that and call the police and
eventually the Children Health and Welfare would come and investigate,
perhaps even to take the child away until the investigation is over.
This has happened in real life.

Child abuse is a very subjective topic to begin with.

John Campbell

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

Mike McConnell <mike_mcconn...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>John,
>
>I'm not going to waste my time to respond when this matter was covered
>several times throughout the 190+ postings. Go and scroll through them
>if you're so darned fastidious about my writings. Go ahead a re-live
>the entire posting episodes and wade through them. It's in there.

Okay, I guess you're agreeing with me now. Finally. :)

John Campbell

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
Mike McConnell <mike_mcconn...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Which
>is why it is easier to after a potential "neglect" issue or none at all.

It's easier for hearing people to get away with murder.


Mike McConnell

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
It's laughable, and sometimes scary, when people attempt at circular
reasoning without offering an explanation of why it is the case and
only use "because" as an attempt at explanation. Prime example is the
"survival of the fittest" when attempting at 100 percent correlation
between the two words "survival" and "fittest" and it goes like this,
"Why do certain individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How
do we know they are the fittest? Because they survive" which is what a
100 percent correlation looks like. Or it could look like this, "The
fittest survive, therefore they are fittest and survive," In the
first place survival is not evolution.

With people using circular reasonings, there's hardly no need to see
their wits since there aren't any in the first place if they keep up
with using seemingly pithy quotes as a catch all end all phrase. But
sometimes I'm willing to overlook such oversights and just shake my
head.

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In a previous article Mike McConnell <mike_mcconn...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes:
:
;It's laughable, and sometimes scary, when people attempt at circular

:reasoning without offering an explanation of why it is the case and
;only use "because" as an attempt at explanation. Prime example is the
:"survival of the fittest" when attempting at 100 percent correlation
;between the two words "survival" and "fittest" and it goes like this,
:"Why do certain individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How
;do we know they are the fittest? Because they survive" which is what a
:100 percent correlation looks like. Or it could look like this, "The
;fittest survive, therefore they are fittest and survive,"

Why is she the beauty queen? Because she is the one the judges picked.
There is nothing circular about that. Beauty queen is whom we call the
one the judges pick to be to be the winner, and the fittests are what we
call the ones the environment pick to let survive. You can talk about
the qualities it takes to be a beauty queen, and even talk about who
should be the beauty queen in a line up, but all of that is just
speculation. It is the judges who at the end decides who is the beauty
queen. You cannot say the one the judge chose to be the beauty queen is
not the beauty queen. Same thing with "survival of the fittest". You can
talk about what you think contributes to fitness, and what you think is
most fit, but you can never say the ones who survived are not the fittest.

;In the


:first place survival is not evolution.

Of course. Survival of the fittest is only the environment half of it.
As I have said, the population half has to do with replication and
inheritable, mutateable traits.

Deafmisc

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:

>It is the judges who at the end decides who is the beauty
>queen. You cannot say the one the judge chose to be the beauty queen is
>not the beauty queen. Same thing with "survival of the fittest".

My perception of "survival of the fittest" is that when necessary, one is
willing to adapt to the changing environment in order to "thrive" or "survive",
etc.

For instance, let's say two Spanish speaking immigrants that doesn't know a
word of English arrive in the USA.

One decides that in order to better adapt to this country, in terms of getting
jobs and promotions, he or she needs to learn English.

The other decides not to bother learning English, instead that person thinks in
terms of "Let the majority of Americans learn Spanish in order to communicate
with me."

You would think the 1st person has a better chance of succeeding than the one
that doesn't want to learn English ? Don't you think ?

Therefore the 1st person is more willing to do what it takes to succeed, thrive
or as one would put it, "survive". As in "Survival of the Fittest" ?

Get it ? As in, "God help those who help themselves, etc".

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In a previous article deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) writes:
:
;In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:
:
;>It is the judges who at the end decides who is the beauty
:>queen. You cannot say the one the judge chose to be the beauty queen is
;>not the beauty queen. Same thing with "survival of the fittest".
:
;My perception of "survival of the fittest" is that when necessary, one is
:willing to adapt to the changing environment in order to "thrive" or "survive",
;etc.

I understand what you mean, but it is not what "survival of the fittest"
means where it originated in evolutionary biology. The thing that is
wrong with borrowing it for something else is in doing so it lends false
credence to something not rightly deserving it.

;For instance, let's say two Spanish speaking immigrants that doesn't know a


:word of English arrive in the USA.
;
:One decides that in order to better adapt to this country, in terms of getting
;jobs and promotions, he or she needs to learn English.

The analogy does not work because a Spanish speaking member of the society
can learn to speak English as well as anybody else, but CI does not give
a deaf child any where close to the same hearing capability as a hearing
person. If there is a genetic defect that would prevent a member of the
society from learning English but has no problem with learning Spanish,
the fair thing isn't to give him an implant so he can at best use English
at pre-school level for the rest of his life. If there are no better
solutions available, members of a fair society would have to incorporate
Spanish as part of the language they use. He has helped himself already
just by learning Spanish.

Mike McConnell

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to

> Why is she the beauty queen? Because she is the one the judges
> picked. There is nothing circular about that.


Of course it's not circular reasoning since you can't use a 2nd
"because" to go back to the first sentence that talks about the beauty
queen. Also, there is no example of a single phrase that would capture
both beauty queen and judges.


> Beauty queen is whom we call the one the judges pick to be to be the
> winner, and the fittests are
> what we call the ones the environment pick to let survive. You can
> talk about
> the qualities it takes to be a beauty queen, and even talk about
> who should be the beauty queen in a line up, but all of that is just

> speculation. It is the judges who at the end decides who is the


> beauty queen. You cannot say the one the judge chose to be the beauty
> queen is not the beauty queen. Same thing with "survival of the

> fittest". You can talk about what you think contributes to fitness,
> and what you think is most fit, but you can never say the ones who
> survived are not the fittest.


So, you're saying....

The judges pick to be the winner who will be the beauty queen.
The environments pick to be the survivor who will be the fittest.

.and turn it into a question...

Why is the survivor the fittest? Because the survivor is the one
the environments picked (to become the fittest).

..which is better because it shows it not to be a circular reasoning.
The problem itself is the catch all end all phrase "survival of the
fittest" even though you've explained the environment as the source
that "chooses" who will survive and *become* the fittest whether
the survivor was the fittest or not to begin with.

The "survival of the fittest" doesn't explain the situation itself
about why or how one survives. You have to step outside of the phrase
to explain that it is the environment, whatever it might be, that
"chooses" who will survive and thus *become* the fittest. Stepping
outside of the
phrase just becomes an entirely moot exercise. If you can find a
single phrase that captures environment, "becoming the fittest", and
survival then I might be more acceptable about the new phrase. It'd be
even better if the phrase is somehow interjected about replication and
inheritable, mutateable traits of a population to complete
the whole evolutionary concept into one phrase that can explain
the concept even more clearly supposedly so.

The old phrase, in itself, is completely based on circular reasoning
when attempting to explain why one survives ("Why do certain


individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know

they are the fittest? Because they survive").

Then again the theory of evolution is a hot potato.

Roving Reporter

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
On 20 Oct 1999 07:36:36 -0700, wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) took an

electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and scribbled:
>In a previous article Mike McConnell <mike_mcconn...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes:
>;It's laughable, and sometimes scary, when people attempt at circular
>:reasoning without offering an explanation of why it is the case and
>;only use "because" as an attempt at explanation. Prime example is the
>:"survival of the fittest" when attempting at 100 percent correlation

>It is the judges who at the end decides who is the beauty


>queen. You cannot say the one the judge chose to be the beauty queen is
>not the beauty queen. Same thing with "survival of the fittest". You can
>talk about what you think contributes to fitness, and what you think is
>most fit, but you can never say the ones who survived are not the fittest.

The ones who survive aren't always the fittest...it depends on the
selection criteria. The word "survive" can lead to fallacious
reasoning if you use it without defining the conditions.

I may use it to mean "whomever is alive at the year 2000 is fittest up
to that point" -- you may mean "whomever survives a specific type of
stress event is fittest."

Two or more people arguing a point without establishing the parameters
are arguing to the wind.

Roving Reporter

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
On 20 Oct 1999 13:48:32 -0700, wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) took an

electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and scribbled:
>In a previous article deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) writes:
>;In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:
>;>It is the judges who at the end decides who is the beauty

>:>queen. You cannot say the one the judge chose to be the beauty queen is
>;>not the beauty queen. Same thing with "survival of the fittest".
>:
>;My perception of "survival of the fittest" is that when necessary, one is
>:willing to adapt to the changing environment in order to "thrive" or "survive",
>;etc.
>
>I understand what you mean, but it is not what "survival of the fittest"
>means where it originated in evolutionary biology. The thing that is
>wrong with borrowing it for something else is in doing so it lends false
>credence to something not rightly deserving it.

Which is pretty much what you've been doing along with several other
people who got dragged into this argument.

>;For instance, let's say two Spanish speaking immigrants that doesn't know a
>:word of English arrive in the USA.
>;
>:One decides that in order to better adapt to this country, in terms of getting
>;jobs and promotions, he or she needs to learn English.
>
>The analogy does not work because a Spanish speaking member of the society
>can learn to speak English as well as anybody else, but CI does not give
>a deaf child any where close to the same hearing capability as a hearing
>person. If there is a genetic defect that would prevent a member of the
>society from learning English but has no problem with learning Spanish,
>the fair thing isn't to give him an implant so he can at best use English
>at pre-school level for the rest of his life. If there are no better
>solutions available, members of a fair society would have to incorporate
>Spanish as part of the language they use. He has helped himself already
>just by learning Spanish.

Uh-uh, false premise. First of all, both immigrants can survive
because there are Spanish-speaking sections of this country where the
Spanish-speaking one can go live. We are not a monolingual country,
although a majority of nativeborn people in the U.S. do use English.
Deaf people have similar options but in much smaller numbers.

The fact is, most Deaf people who use ASL from birth also learn
English well enough to hold a job. It's the latecomers to the sign
community who have problems, the ones who didn't get language early
enough in their lives.

That doesn't mean they can't survive, but they do need more help in
order to do so. That's what social workers do.

Gary G

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
Just had a recent implant patient drop in to see me...She was turned on
18 days ago and can't stop feeling better about life in general...She
has spent 15 years struggling...From power aids to a body aid...Then she
finally allowed me to refer her for a consultation...She beams with
happiness and is hoping to soon use a telephone...I have sometimes read
bits and pieces of the on-going posts on CI...I can only say that for
many the implant has changed there lives for the better...And all the
rhetoric can't change that...When she left my office she said was going
to the mall to take in all the noise...Her smile and hug makes
everything I do worth it...GG

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In a previous article Gary G <Hig...@netwiz.net> writes:
:
;Just had a recent implant patient drop in to see me...She was turned on

None of the talks here was about an adult or late deaf person getting a CI.

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/20/99
to
In a previous article deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) writes:

:I know what you mean that a CI doesn't make a deaf child or adult hear like a
;hearing person, etc.
:
;But, at the same time what's wrong with the possibility that perhaps maybe some
:deaf people could be more self-motivated and think in terms of "How can I try
;to make myself speak or hear better ?" This way I could go over to the majority
:(hearing people) and help myself.

I am not one to tell deaf people what to think. They can certainly think
that way, sure, but the question is what should members of a fair society
do. CI doesn't make a deaf child or adult hear like a hearing person,
and so the only fair thing to do is for members of the society to learn
to sign regardless of whether deaf people embraces CI or not. Otherwise
deaf people will be unfairly treated regardless of whether they have CI
or not. But when that is done, or determined to be what should be done,
there is very little point to getting CI.

Deafmisc

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
>The analogy does not work because a Spanish speaking member of the society
>can learn to speak English as well as anybody else, but CI does not give
>a deaf child any where close to the same hearing capability as a hearing
>person. If there is a genetic defect that would prevent a member of the
>society from learning English but has no problem with learning Spanish,
>the fair thing isn't to give him an implant so he can at best use English
>at pre-school level for the rest of his life. If there are no better
>solutions available, members of a fair society would have to incorporate
>Spanish as part of the language they use. He has helped himself already
>just by learning Spanish.

I know what you mean that a CI doesn't make a deaf child or adult hear like a
hearing person, etc.

But, at the same time what's wrong with the possibility that perhaps maybe some
deaf people could be more self-motivated and think in terms of "How can I try
to make myself speak or hear better ?" This way I could go over to the majority
(hearing people) and help myself.

As opposed to, thinking this way "I'm deaf therefore I must use sign language"
and I "cannot change my deaf identity". And if a hearing person doesn't know
sign language, that's it, they're stucked !

You know the saying, "you cannot change others, but you can change yourself,
etc" ?

John Campbell

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) wrote:

>>The analogy does not work because a Spanish speaking member of the society
>>can learn to speak English as well as anybody else, but CI does not give
>>a deaf child any where close to the same hearing capability as a hearing
>>person. If there is a genetic defect that would prevent a member of the
>>society from learning English but has no problem with learning Spanish,
>>the fair thing isn't to give him an implant so he can at best use English
>>at pre-school level for the rest of his life. If there are no better
>>solutions available, members of a fair society would have to incorporate
>>Spanish as part of the language they use. He has helped himself already
>>just by learning Spanish.
>
>I know what you mean that a CI doesn't make a deaf child or adult hear like a
>hearing person, etc.
>
>But, at the same time what's wrong with the possibility that perhaps maybe some
>deaf people could be more self-motivated and think in terms of "How can I try
>to make myself speak or hear better ?" This way I could go over to the majority
>(hearing people) and help myself.
>
>As opposed to, thinking this way "I'm deaf therefore I must use sign language"
>and I "cannot change my deaf identity".

Not really, their thinking is this: "I'm deaf and since I can't hear,
it's frustrating to try to talk and lip-read. I like sign language
better. I find that deaf people have alot more in common with me than
hearing people. That's my deaf identity. Hearing people dont
understand deaf. They often look down at them."

>And if a hearing person doesn't know
>sign language, that's it, they're stucked !

And vice versa, they're stucked with the deaf. Many of them have good
heart to be willing to learn sign language.

>You know the saying, "you cannot change others, but you can change yourself,
>etc" ?

Dont count on it.

MXROSS

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
>>You know the saying, "you cannot change others, but you can change yourself,
>>etc" ?
>
>Dont count on it.
>
I hope this statement means that you don't have the confidence to change
yourself and not that you believe people can't change. It is possible, yes very
hard sometimes but...

I've been following this thread for quite some time, quietly, and would like to
say something i haven't seen yet:
In the "debate" about survival of the fittest, Has anyone gone so far as to
define the word 'fittest' in their opinion? My 'opinion' is that the fittest
creature survives because it is Adaptable. It recognizes on some basic level
the need to change something about it's existence in order to survive it's
environment. I see no reason that Deaf or hearing persons need to change
something about themselves physically to accomplish co-habitation. each
individual should evaluate their own needs and wants for their own lives. some
hearing may find that in order to survive better in this society (US) they need
to( or want to) learn another language, ie Spanish or ASL. I do not view this
as giving up their own culture or heritage, but trying to find a way to share
their experiences and lives with a wider variety of people. likewise, i don't
see anything wrong or different about a Deaf person learning English, or
Spanish or any other language. In most areas, some knowledge of the written
language for that area is essential for ease of navigation and safety. Is this
denying their own culture by trying to enhance their knowledge? If a person
gives up his/her native language (spoken or signed) completely, then absolutely
I agree they are denying their own culture, but if they try to find ways to
share their culture with others and learn about other cultures, then they are
only enriching their own lives.
CI is a difficult issue here if the reason behind a person receiving one or a
parent deciding their child should have one is to exclude any specific culture.
A person with little hearing , or no hearing needs to have the Deaf culture
available to them, same as a hearing person needs to have a hearing culture
available. I belive that some parents subjecting their children to CI have that
desire in mind, albeit clouded because they could be thinking about the
"easiest" way for them to pass on their own (hearing) culture. These parents
need to also include their children in the local deaf community. This should be
common sense, because in all my findings, CI does not lead to total
communication without the addition of sign. Couldn't there be a way to include
hoh or CI recipients in both Deaf and hearing cultures? I'm sure this in no way
hinders them from finding their own identity as individuals, it only creates a
new perspective to someones identity that not one person posting here has
allowed the posibility for.
Let us open up the world to all cultures by sharing our own with others, not
forcing it on them or neglecting it from them.
Mark Ross
Resident Actor
Cleveland Signstage Theatre
http://signstage.org/index.html

Annette C. Hollmann

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

And by doing that, they automatically shut out all the blind people,
because totally blind people can't see sign language.

IMHO you can't just refuse to learn speech just because it's a bother any
more than you can refuse to learn your multiplication tables. If nobody
can be bothered to learn anything, who will get all the work done?
Who will be left to pay taxes when everyone is uneducated and on welfare?
Sign should be the first language for deaf children, but they should be
required to learn the oral language of their country as well as they are
physically capable, essentially taking it as a foreign language class.
Deaf kids in Germany learn Sign, German, English, and some learn a second
or third foreign language as well. Why can't deaf kids in the U.S. learn
sign and English?

Annette

Deafmisc

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article tls...@concentric.net (Roving Reporter) writes:

> It's the latecomers to the sign
>community who have problems, the ones who didn't get language early
>enough in their lives.

That's just your perception, your experiences, etc. The ones you're probably
surrounded with.

For some reasons, you obviously aren't surrounded with deaf people that shows
otherwise. There's alot more of them out there than you think. Perhaps, they're
just not around you. Maybe due to geographical reasons, maybe due to your job
or as the saying goes "Birds of a feather flock together", etc.

Deafmisc

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:

>In a previous article Gary G <Hig...@netwiz.net> writes:
>:
>;Just had a recent implant patient drop in to see me...She was turned on
>:18 days ago and can't stop feeling better about life in general...She
>;has spent 15 years struggling...
>

>None of the talks here was about an adult or late deaf person getting a CI.
>

Wen, I can't verify this. But, it says so "15 years struggling", so she may
only be 15 years old. It also says she is going to the mall and stuff.

So, she's probably only 15 years old and a teenager. Look at it this way, if
she was older, don't you think she would have made a posting herself in here
and not her parent, etc.

So, if she's 15, then obviously you cannot claim her as an adult. Let's see
what her parent(s) say about how old she is, etc....

Gary G

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
So...What's your point...GG

Wen-King Su wrote:
>
> In a previous article Gary G <Hig...@netwiz.net> writes:
> :
> ;Just had a recent implant patient drop in to see me...She was turned on
> :18 days ago and can't stop feeling better about life in general...She

> ;has spent 15 years struggling...From power aids to a body aid...Then she
> :finally allowed me to refer her for a consultation...She beams with
> ;happiness and is hoping to soon use a telephone...I have sometimes read
> :bits and pieces of the on-going posts on CI...I can only say that for
> ;many the implant has changed there lives for the better...And all the
> :rhetoric can't change that...When she left my office she said was going
> ;to the mall to take in all the noise...Her smile and hug makes
> :everything I do worth it...GG
>

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article Gary G <Hig...@netwiz.net> writes:
:
;So...What's your point...GG

The point is the issue in dispute has to do with whether it constitutes
a child abuse to give CI to children not old enough to make their own
informed decision about whether they want CI. Whether your one adult
patient would want it for her self doesn't is irrelevant.

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article Mike McConnell <mike_mcconn...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes:

;The old phrase, in itself, is completely based on circular reasoning


:when attempting to explain why one survives ("Why do certain
;individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know
:they are the fittest? Because they survive").

You call it circular, I call it tautological truth. It is not supposed
to explain anything by itself except as a statement of observeable fact.
It together with other facts about inheritance and mutation, etc, form
the basis of what is known as evolutionary biology. The concept when
condensed to too few a words as "survival of the fittests", runs the risk
of being easily misunderstood, but I did not coin it, nor can I change
it. I can only tell people when they misunderstood it.

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) writes:

:IMHO you can't just refuse to learn speech just because it's a bother any


;more than you can refuse to learn your multiplication tables. If nobody
:can be bothered to learn anything, who will get all the work done?
;Who will be left to pay taxes when everyone is uneducated and on welfare?
:Sign should be the first language for deaf children, but they should be
;required to learn the oral language of their country as well as they are
:physically capable, essentially taking it as a foreign language class.
;Deaf kids in Germany learn Sign, German, English, and some learn a second
:or third foreign language as well. Why can't deaf kids in the U.S. learn
;sign and English?

Deaf kids do learn English. They learn to read and write at an early
age. But that is a different issue from learning to talk and lip-read.

Annette C. Hollmann

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

No it is not.
They should learn both to the best of their capability.
Many German deaf kids can speak and lipread more than one language.
Surely American kids can at least manage to get some competence in
English.

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) writes:

;>Deaf kids do learn English. They learn to read and write at an early


:>age. But that is a different issue from learning to talk and lip-read.
;
:No it is not.
;They should learn both to the best of their capability.

No no. They can learn to the best of their capability, but they should
only have to learn to an extent such that beyond which the undertaking
would have become unfair to them. In a society that values fairness, it
does not extend to speech and lip-reading.

Christian Vogler

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
Annette C. Hollmann (ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:

: They should learn both to the best of their capability.
: Many German deaf kids can speak and lipread more than one language.


: Surely American kids can at least manage to get some competence in
: English.

The situation in a foreign country often appears to be more rosy than
it really is. This is not surprising, considering that you are likely
to see and be shown the elite first. Myself, I am German, but have
been living in the USA for the past 4 years. I can say with confidence
that deaf education in Germany in general is abysmal. There are
exceptions, but no more so than in the USA. I have met quite a few
American deaf who have competence in English and another foreign
language.

Have you ever seen what kind of competence the average deaf German has
in German? I help maintain the largest deafness-related resource on
the web for Germans, and my team often works closely with other German
deafness-related sites. So, I see examples of the reading and writing
competence of the average German deaf every day. Let me only say that
it makes me really mad at the powers that be in German deaf education.

I venture out on shaky ground here and say that the competence the
average German deaf has in German is, in fact, worse than the
competence the average American has in English. Now, German is a more
difficult language than English, but can this alone explain the
differences between the German and American deaf?

Perhaps you might want to take a closer look at the respective
educational systems for the deaf in Germany and America?

- Christian


--
Christian Vogler cvo...@gradient.cis.upenn.edu
CIS Ph.D. student http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cvogler/home.html
University of Pennsylvania

Christian Vogler

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
Wen-King Su (wen-...@myri.com) wrote:

: No no. They can learn to the best of their capability, but they should


: only have to learn to an extent such that beyond which the undertaking
: would have become unfair to them.

Uh. Let me elaborate on this idea: Why don't we graduate every deaf
kid after fourth grade and let him or her become a janitor? Surely,
you need not learn more than that at school to be effective at this
job. And the kids will be very happy not to have to go to school
anymore.

Something must be wrong here.

- Christian

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article cvo...@gradin.cis.upenn.edu (Christian Vogler) writes:
:

;Wen-King Su (wen-...@myri.com) wrote:
:
;: No no. They can learn to the best of their capability, but they should
:: only have to learn to an extent such that beyond which the undertaking
;: would have become unfair to them.
:
;Uh. Let me elaborate on this idea: Why don't we graduate every deaf
:kid after fourth grade and let him or her become a janitor?

Does studying becomes unfair to them as they move into the fifth grade?

Deafmisc

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous articles wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su)) writes:

>No no. They can learn to the best of their capability, but they should
>only have to learn to an extent such that beyond which the undertaking

>would have become unfair to them. In a society that values fairness, it
>does not extend to speech and lip-reading.
>

What's so wrong about trying to have this "I can do it atttitude" or "at least
I could try harder" ?

Sometimes, it's a question of it takes two to tango. The reason why some deaf
people do not have better speech or lipreading skills is partly faults of their
own, etc.

Some even refused to wear hearing aids, claiming they are proud of their "deaf
identity". But, unfortunately the reality is that, their not wearing hearing
aids would make it harder for them to communicate with the majority of hearing
people out there in the real world whether they like it or not, etc.

You keep stressing "fairness". But what's so wrong with that maybe some people,
including some deaf people should get off their little butts and try to help
improve themselves and go succeed out there in the real world, etc. Rather than
just waiting back helplessly, hoping and praying that more hearing people would
learn signs. But, the reality is that most hearing people, unfortunately are
too caught up with their own lives, bills, families to worry about.

I'm sure, you're not exactly preoccupying your thoughts with things like "How
could I help retarted people or how could I help people with so and so diseases
in an underdeveloped countries" are you ? Why ? Cause you have your own
problems, needs and concerns to worry about, etc.

Are you implying that you think deaf people should just stand still and not do
anything ? And just wait for hearing people to go over to them, roll out the
red carpets for them, cause after all "life isn't fair" ???

Deafmisc

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:

>Does studying becomes unfair to them as they move into the fifth grade?
>

Does wearing hearing aids become unfair to them either ?

MXROSS

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
>CI doesn't make a deaf child or adult hear like a hearing person,
>and so the only fair thing to do is for members of the society to learn
>to sign regardless of whether deaf people embraces CI or not.

>But when that is done, or determined to be what should be done,


>there is very little point to getting CI.

I think you are missing the point many people look into the OPTION of CI, ( i
use caps because noone can be forced to USE CI, yes they can be 'forced' to be
implanted if they are under a certain age, but noone can make you do anything
you don't want to do).
I agree that it is vitally important to make sure that parents are very
thoroughly informed about every aspect of CI good experiences and bad so that
they can come to their own logical decisions. I believe that they, having all
the information they can aquire, decide to go through with CI it won't be to
make their child hearing and completely disreguard ASL and the Deaf comunity.
the very little point in getting the CI then is your decision, not theirs.
perhaps they want their child to have an opportunity to at least understand the
concept of sound. this doesn't sound like abuse to me IF they make sign the
primary language. I'm not really in favor of oralism over sign, but I don't
think learning some English, beyond written is harmful. If we could reach a
point in this country where ASL were required to be taught at some level in
Primary education, which I believe is a just and necessary cause, then we
should also be open to the attempts to teaching some form of oralism to aid the
signer.
Mark Ross
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/3173

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) writes:
:
;In a previous articles wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su)) writes:
:
;>No no. They can learn to the best of their capability, but they should
:>only have to learn to an extent such that beyond which the undertaking
;>would have become unfair to them. In a society that values fairness, it
:>does not extend to speech and lip-reading.
;>
:
;What's so wrong about trying to have this "I can do it atttitude" or "at least
:I could try harder" ?

Nothing wrong with having that attitude. But as I have said, I am not
one to tell them what they should think. The question I am posing instead
is: is speech and lip-reading things a society that values fairness would
require of its deaf members? The answer is no. Having to rely on speech
and lip-reading place them at an unfair disadvantage, whereas the
disadvantage is erase if hearing people can sign. Hence members of a
society that values fairness would learn to sign instead of requiring its
deaf members to use speech and lip-reading. It is that simple. It is a
duty for all members of the society, and it is independent of what the
deaf members do.

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article mxr...@aol.com (MXROSS) writes:
:
;>CI doesn't make a deaf child or adult hear like a hearing person,

:>and so the only fair thing to do is for members of the society to learn
;>to sign regardless of whether deaf people embraces CI or not.
:
;>But when that is done, or determined to be what should be done,
:>there is very little point to getting CI.
;
:I think you are missing the point many people look into the OPTION of CI, ( i
;use caps because noone can be forced to USE CI, yes they can be 'forced' to be
:implanted if they are under a certain age, but noone can make you do anything
;you don't want to do).
: I agree that it is vitally important to make sure that parents are very
;thoroughly informed about every aspect of CI good experiences and bad so that
:they can come to their own logical decisions. I believe that they, having all
;the information they can aquire, decide to go through with CI it won't be to
:make their child hearing and completely disreguard ASL and the Deaf comunity.

Then you have not talked to enough people. Some I talked to would even
proudly annouce that they quit going to ASL classes as soon as they found
out their children are eligible for CI. Also, having gotten all the
information available to them and evaluated it in a rational manner would
necessarily means that they are aware that if their children can make
informed decisions, their decision would most likely be "no" to CI. To
disregard that is irrational. A child is not a property. He has rights
that has to be respected. Violating those rights is an abuse.

Mike McConnell

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

> You call it circular, I call it tautological truth.

It's still circular. You're attempting at using the statement to be
necessarily true when it's really just useless repetition onto itself
while attempting to say something that is adequate enough.


> It is not
> supposed to explain anything by itself except as a statement of
> observeable fact.

Then again that's another problem. It isn't an observable fact since
not all of them have been observed to begin with. When something that
is said to be an "observable fact" it attempt at explaining things. To
observe implies a certain "truth" which is a basis at explaining
things. If you say that limited observations are enough to be called as
a fact then something is wrong. It's only an assumption at best as this
may be the case but it's not. The gist is that some survive and some
die, but we knew this at the onset. Nothing has been explained or shown
to be an actual fact about "survival" and "fittest" and it's an
unproven tautologcal truth and not a testable theory.

"Differential reproductive success" is better and used more often among
the evolutionary theorists. It avoids the moral judgement implicit in
"fittest".


> It together with other facts about inheritance and mutation, etc,
> form the basis of what is known as evolutionary biology. The concept
> when condensed to too few a words as "survival of the fittests", runs
> the risk of being easily misunderstood, but I did not coin it, nor
can > I change it.

And since it is easily misunderstood and it was coined by Darwin,
ableit a bit too early, then the whole phrase should simply be
abandoned and forgotten. Even Darwin regretted his phrasing of
"survival of the fittest" in his other book after his editions of
"Origin of Species". He regretted that he attributed too much to the
action of natural descent of the survival of the fittest. But still
somehow this phrase wasn't dropped even after he acknowledged his
mistake in using this "tautological truth" in the first place.


> I can only tell people when they misunderstood it.

And still the circle continues on.


* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article Mike McConnell <mike_mcconn...@hotmail.com.invalid> writes:
:
;
:> You call it circular, I call it tautological truth.

;
:It's still circular. You're attempting at using the statement to be
;necessarily true when it's really just useless repetition onto itself
:while attempting to say something that is adequate enough.

It is a theory that tautological truth, or definitional truth, is the
only thing we can truely know, and that theory so far stands. To say
such things are useless is to say there is nothing worth to know at all.

;> It is not


:> supposed to explain anything by itself except as a statement of
;> observeable fact.
:
;Then again that's another problem. It isn't an observable fact since
:not all of them have been observed to begin with.

Observeable is not the same as having seen it all. Observeable as an
attributes simply means that something is capable of being observed --
if not now, then maybe sometime in the past or in the future, and if not
by us, then maybe by some other entities. A "statement" of an observeable
fact is not necessarily a explanation. A statement can be a lot of things.

; The gist is that some survive and some


:die, but we knew this at the onset. Nothing has been explained or shown
;to be an actual fact about "survival" and "fittest" and it's an
:unproven tautologcal truth and not a testable theory.

But "survival of the fittist" is just a restatement of "some survive and
some die" plus the notion that there is some degree of consistency to who
survives and who dies. It is not a theory. It is what theories are built
on. The theory that build on it says "survival of the fittist", which
is the property of the environment, and the inheritable traits, mutations,
etc, that are the properties of the population, together accounts for all
the life forms we see today.

;And since it is easily misunderstood and it was coined by Darwin,


:ableit a bit too early, then the whole phrase should simply be
;abandoned and forgotten.

I agree entirely. I am not the one who introduced it here, nor have I
used it else where.

Wen-King Su

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
In a previous article ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) writes:
:
;In article <7untdj$a...@neptune.myri.com> wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:

:>In a previous article ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) writes:
;>
:>;>Deaf kids do learn English. They learn to read and write at an early
;>:>age. But that is a different issue from learning to talk and lip-read.
:>;
;>:No it is not.
:>;They should learn both to the best of their capability.
;>
:>No no. They can learn to the best of their capability, but they should

;>only have to learn to an extent such that beyond which the undertaking
:>would have become unfair to them. In a society that values fairness, it
;>does not extend to speech and lip-reading.
:
;LOTS of kids can do it.
:If a kid takes oral language from kindergarten through grade 10, just like
;a foreign language, he will likely develop great proficiency.

No they can't. They do not have the audio information available to the
hearing people. They will always have great difficulty lip reading speech
compared to hearing people hearing speech.

:If he can't, that's fine, at least he tried, and will have at least
;somewhat improved oral language skills.

But that is not the question I posed. The question is in a society that
values fairness, what should members of the society have done? Since a
deaf person will always be at a tremendous disadvantage at speech when
compared with an otherwise identical hearing person, whether or not he
can lip-read, the thing for members of the society to do is to incorporate
signing as a way its members communicate. This has nothing to do with
whether deaf people can lip-read or not.

Roving Reporter

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
On 21 Oct 1999 23:05:17 GMT, deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) took an
electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and scribbled:

>In a previous articles wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su)) writes:
>>No no. They can learn to the best of their capability, but they should
>>only have to learn to an extent such that beyond which the undertaking
>>would have become unfair to them. In a society that values fairness, it
>>does not extend to speech and lip-reading.
>
>What's so wrong about trying to have this "I can do it atttitude" or "at least
>I could try harder" ?
>
>Sometimes, it's a question of it takes two to tango. The reason why some deaf
>people do not have better speech or lipreading skills is partly faults of their
>own, etc.

No it's not.

>Some even refused to wear hearing aids, claiming they are proud of their "deaf
>identity". But, unfortunately the reality is that, their not wearing hearing
>aids would make it harder for them to communicate with the majority of hearing
>people out there in the real world whether they like it or not, etc.

The reason they don't wear hearing aids is that it's not rewarding.
Make it rewarding and the problem is solved. Believe it or not, kids
do want to get along with people, even Deaf kids. But if they keep
losing out when they try something, they aren't going to try.
Furthermore, asking them to be perfect is just asking for failure
because there's damn few Deaf kids who can be close to perfect at
acting hearing.

>You keep stressing "fairness". But what's so wrong with that maybe some people,
>including some deaf people should get off their little butts and try to help
>improve themselves and go succeed out there in the real world, etc. Rather than
>just waiting back helplessly, hoping and praying that more hearing people would
>learn signs. But, the reality is that most hearing people, unfortunately are
>too caught up with their own lives, bills, families to worry about.

You're taking the person who started this argument entirely too
seriously. In actual fact, most Deaf people are busy getting on with
their lives, and not waiting anyplace. A lot of them do seem to end up
on social security, but that's because in high school, that's what
vocational rehabilitation counselors etc. encourage as part of their
"exit planning." It's a byproduct of the fact that most employers are
severely prejudiced against hiring a deaf person out of high school,
so what the hell else are they going to live on while they go to
college, or whatever else they do to get started in their adult life?

Deaf people in the U.S., unlike hearing people, can't join the
military if civilian life happens not to work out.

--
Therese Shellabarger - tls...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~tlshell/ Shalom chaverot!

Roving Reporter

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to
On 22 Oct 1999 02:00:34 GMT, ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C.
Hollmann) took an electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and
scribbled:

>If a kid takes oral language from kindergarten through grade 10, just like
>a foreign language, he will likely develop great proficiency.
>If he can't, that's fine, at least he tried, and will have at least
>somewhat improved oral language skills.
>What I don't approve of is not even trying to learn to speak.
>It can be done.
>It's ok to try and not be the best.
>It's not ok to just not try - that's called being lazy.
>It's like not learning your multiplication tables because you actually
>have to do some work.

Speechreading is a talent, not a skill. It can't be taught to someone
who "doesn't get it" -- it can only be improved upon to someone who
has some aptitude to begin with, just like music or art. Depending on
speechreading as the method of choice with deaf children is like
taking all your toys, smashing them on the floor and deciding which
ones you will play with depending on which ones are left unbroken.

There's too many Deaf kids who were smashed that way.

As for speech, I can tell you from experience that it's damn hard to
speak if you can't hear what you're doing. It takes a lot of hard
time-consuming work that steals time needed to learn so that one would
have something to say. It's not cost-effective use of a child's life
unless they already have a fortune to inherit and only need to "look
pretty" to get along in society.

I would far rather have someone who is highly skilled in many things,
or well-educated in different subjects, who can't speak but can sign
and write fluently, than someone who is functionally illiterate but
can speak.

In fact, I have met both types, so I know what the hell I'm talking
about.

I've also met a vanishingly few who could speak and were literate, but
almost invariably knowledgeable only in one subject...not what I call
a "well-rounded education." I only know of one who was born profoundly
deaf, she told me she attended a Waldorf School in Germany, if that's
any help to anyone.

Mike McConnell

unread,
Oct 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/21/99
to

>>> You call it circular, I call it tautological truth.

>>It's still circular. You're attempting at using the statement to
>> be necessarily true when it's really just useless repetition onto
>> itself while attempting to say something that is adequate enough.

> It is a theory that tautological truth, or definitional truth, is
> the only thing we can truely know, and that theory so far stands.

It cannot stand since the original "theory" about "survival of the
fittest" originated in Darwin's "Origin of Species" was an attempt to
explain why species seem to survive (because they are the fittest).
People have been trying to rehash and update the original theory on
what "survival of the fittest" is supposed to mean in order to try and
fit into the part of today's evolutionary concept.


>>> To say such things are useless is to say there is nothing worth to
>>> know at all. It is not supposed to explain anything by itself
except >>> as a statement of observeable fact.

>> Then again that's another problem. It isn't an observable fact
>> since not all of them have been observed to begin with.

> Observeable is not the same as having seen it all. Observeable as
> an attributes simply means that something is capable of being
> observed -- if not now, then maybe sometime in the past or in the
> future, and if not by us, then maybe by some other entities. A
> "statement" of an observeable fact is not necessarily a explanation.
> A statement can be a lot of things.

No. You said "observeable fact" which in its own right meant that
something has been observed whether recently or in the distant past in
order to produce a "fact" or an explanation based on an observation(s).
You cannot hope for an observation to produce a "fact" in the future
sense. "Fact" is a piece of information about circumstances that exist
or events that have occurred.

>> The gist is that some survive and some die, but we knew this at the
>> onset. Nothing has been explained or shown to be an actual fact
>> about "survival" and "fittest" and it's an unproven tautologcal
truth >> and not a testable theory.

> But "survival of the fittist" is just a restatement of "some
> survive and some die" plus the notion that there is some degree of
> consistency to who survives and who dies.

"Some survive and some die" is just that and doesn't expound on who or
what was the fittest to begin with that attributed to their own
survival. There may be a consistency as to who survives and who dies
but it doesn't attitribute wholly to the idea that being the fittest
was in fact the reason it survived in the first place. That is the key
idea.

> It is not a theory. It is what theories are built
> on. The theory that build on it says "survival of the fittist",
> which is the property of the environment, and the inheritable traits,
> mutations, etc, that are the properties of the population, together
> accounts for all the life forms we see today.

You're adding something to an already decrepit phrase since "fittest"
has been the sticking point all along. "Differential reproductive
success" is much better and avoids the moral judgement implicit in
"fittest" of which you're attempting to describe.


>> ;And since it is easily misunderstood and it was coined by Darwin,
>> :ableit a bit too early, then the whole phrase should simply be
>> ;abandoned and forgotten.

> I agree entirely.

Then nothing further need to be said about "survival of the fittest" and
should not be used in today's evolutionary concept however well
intentioned one tries to do to change the meaning will be fruitless
because "fittest" will present a problem time and time again.

John Campbell

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

cvo...@gradin.cis.upenn.edu (Christian Vogler) wrote:

>Uh. Let me elaborate on this idea: Why don't we graduate every deaf

>kid after fourth grade and let him or her become a janitor? Surely,
>you need not learn more than that at school to be effective at this
>job. And the kids will be very happy not to have to go to school
>anymore.
>
>Something must be wrong here.

No difference from hearing people, either. Some Deaf chose to go to
Gallaudet/NTID to advance their careers. Some chose to be a blue
collar worker.

John Campbell

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to

deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) wrote:

>Sometimes, it's a question of it takes two to tango. The reason why some deaf
>people do not have better speech or lipreading skills is partly faults of their
>own, etc.

It's not their fault. It's their ears that are at fault. Enough of
"They failed... because they didn't try hard enough."

>Some even refused to wear hearing aids, claiming they are proud of their "deaf
>identity".

That's what you think, not what they say. It's all in your perception.

>But, unfortunately the reality is that, their not wearing hearing
>aids would make it harder for them to communicate with the majority of hearing
>people out there in the real world whether they like it or not, etc.

Still, hearing aids do not make it any easier for them.

As for the big pond vs small pond argument, a small pond of closed
knit Deaf friends is better than a big pond of hearing strangers.

>Are you implying that you think deaf people should just stand still and not do
>anything ? And just wait for hearing people to go over to them, roll out the
>red carpets for them, cause after all "life isn't fair" ???

Do you expect deaf people to roll over and play dead?

Annette C. Hollmann

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99
to
In article <7untdj$a...@neptune.myri.com> wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:
>In a previous article ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) writes:
>
>;>Deaf kids do learn English. They learn to read and write at an early
>:>age. But that is a different issue from learning to talk and lip-read.
>;
>:No it is not.
>;They should learn both to the best of their capability.

>
>No no. They can learn to the best of their capability, but they should
>only have to learn to an extent such that beyond which the undertaking
>would have become unfair to them. In a society that values fairness, it
>does not extend to speech and lip-reading.

LOTS of kids can do it.


If a kid takes oral language from kindergarten through grade 10, just like
a foreign language, he will likely develop great proficiency.
If he can't, that's fine, at least he tried, and will have at least
somewhat improved oral language skills.
What I don't approve of is not even trying to learn to speak.
It can be done.
It's ok to try and not be the best.
It's not ok to just not try - that's called being lazy.
It's like not learning your multiplication tables because you actually
have to do some work.

Annette

Deafmisc

unread,
Oct 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM10/22/99