Implants....Y'all Hear?
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
:
:>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
>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
:
;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
>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
>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
:
;>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
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
for Wen. A mistake there.
.to be kill filed.
Roving Reporter
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
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
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
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
:
:
;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
>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
:
;>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
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
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
> 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
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
:
: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
>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
:
;>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
> 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
electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and scribbled:
>;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
electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and scribbled:
>;In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:
>:>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
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
:
;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
: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
>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
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
>>etc" ?
>
>Dont count on it.
>
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
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
> 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
>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
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
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
;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
: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
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
;>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
: 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
: 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
:
;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
>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
>Does studying becomes unfair to them as they move into the fifth grade?
>
Does wearing hearing aids become unfair to them either ?
MXROSS
>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
:
;>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
:
;>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
> 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
;
:> 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
;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.
;>
:>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
electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and scribbled:
>>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.
>
>I could try harder" ?
>
>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
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.
>somewhat improved oral language skills.
>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
>>> 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
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
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
>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.
>
>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
>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.
Wen, who are you to judge what deaf people can or can't do, that you know it
all ? huh ?
Obviously, you haven't met any deaf people with good oral and language skills.
To the point that they hang out almost exclusively with just the "hearing
world".
You have a tendency to think in terms of "Can't". If that's the case, then why
don't you apply that to yourself ! As in YOU can't do this, YOU can't do that.
And stop applying that "Can't" attitude to the deaf people....
Deafmisc
>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.
>
>
It's not as simple as you make it sound out to be. First of all, what if the
majority of hearing does not want to learn signs or feels they don't have the
time to do so ? After all, it's "not their problem".
For instance, which is easier, try making 1,000 people accommodate the 10
people or make the 10 people accommodate the 1,000 ? Do the math. It doesn't
take a rocket scientist to figure that out, etc...
Would making hearing people learn signs place them at a disadvantage ? As in
the saying "You can't teach old a dog new tricks". Not all hearing people are
even that capable of learning signs, yet alone a new language.
If you feel it's unfair to try to make the deaf hear or speak better, then how
come it's different to try to force the hearing to learn signs ?
If some of you insist on having this "the Deaf can't do this or that" attitude
as in "they can't learn to hear and speak better", then I believe "Technology"
and not twisting hearing people to learn signs is probably the more appropriate
answer in the future, etc.
Besides, did it ever occur to you that perhaps it'll be easier and easier to
teach the deaf to speak and hear in the future. With Technology and Science
advancing all the time, at a rapid pace. There's where the momentum is heading,
etc..
Deafmisc
>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.
>
That surely was a uncalled, biased statement for you to make !
That speech therapy is time consuming ? So, they watch a little less TV, that's
all....
The same goes for anything. How did Baseball players become Pros ? They put the
time and energy into it. It certainly was worth it. The rewards certainly are.
Did it ever occur to that there are some deaf people happily functioning in a
"bigger pond" ? And that they felt that the rewards of putting in the time and
energy for speech and hearing were worth it, etc ?
>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
Again, for some reasons, you're just not around deaf people to show otherwise.
I think maybe because of your job, you only get to meet those that "needs your
help".
You do not meet the ones with good oral, lipreading and language skills happily
functioning in the "bigger pond". After all, they're the ones don't need your
help, etc.....
Besides, I've read some of your postings where you claimed you were unhappy
growing up being hard of hearing. Maybe, the problem wasn't your being hard of
hearing, but your own attitude. Thus why maybe you're not meeting more of the
happily functioning deaf people out there from the "bigger pond" as in "birds
of a feather flock together"...
Deafmisc
>The reason they don't wear hearing aids is that it's not rewarding.
>Make it rewarding and the problem is solved.
That's what they're led to believe or encourage to think. They've been
brainwashed into thinking that "hearing aids" does not help from peer pressure,
etc.
If some deaf people says "Be proud of your deaf identity" or "Hearing aids does
not help", they encourage others to think the same. Some also do it for
financial reasons, thinking "hearing aids are expensive". But, personally I
think that's backwards thinking....
Roving Reporter
electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and scribbled:
>>The reason they don't wear hearing aids is that it's not rewarding.
>>Make it rewarding and the problem is solved.
>
>That's what they're led to believe or encourage to think. They've been
>brainwashed into thinking that "hearing aids" does not help from peer pressure,
>etc.
Excuse me, but I grew up with hearing aids. I wore hearing aids
religiously as a kid because that's what everyone told me I needed and
because there weren't any signers around. Was I happy with them? NO!
As soon as I found out about Deaf people and sign language, I felt
liberated!!!
>If some deaf people says "Be proud of your deaf identity" or "Hearing aids does
>not help", they encourage others to think the same. Some also do it for
>financial reasons, thinking "hearing aids are expensive". But, personally I
>think that's backwards thinking....
No. Hearing aids do not help in socializing. A social life is one of
the most important aspects of a person's life. (No, I don't mean
"partying" I mean having the ability to hang out with a group of
friends and chat, learn, have fun, etc.) Since hearing aids are only
good in one-on-one situations, they necessarily limit what you can do,
vs. sign language, which is a solution that expands it.
Can't understand the teacher, doctor, judge, etc.? Ask for an
interpreter!
Can't hear your friends in a crowd? Make new ones who know how to
sign!
You can take classes, take tours at museums, go on group outings,
etc., all with sign language. With hearing aids, you have to struggle.
And that's why technology will NEVER beat sign language.
Annette C. Hollmann
>In a previous article ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) writes:
>:If a kid takes oral language from kindergarten through grade 10, just like
>;a foreign language, he will likely develop great proficiency.
>
>hearing people. They will always have great difficulty lip reading speech
>compared to hearing people hearing speech.
That where hearing aids come in handy.
>
>: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.
Society is
(1) providing education in ASL
(2) providing ASL interpreters
(3) providing hearing aids and CI and constantly trying to improve those
(4) providing ASL classes for those individuals who wish to learn ASL.
(5) providing speech and lipreading training for deaf people so they can
meet the hearing people half-way.
Relying ONLY on ASL, and rejecting hearing aids, CI, and lipreading is a
lazy cop-out.
Society is not going to do everything for you just because you are deaf -
you have to do a little for yourself too.
I have 20/400 vision, and can only use ASL in very good light and at a
very close distance.
It is quite possible that I may lose the rest of my vision.
By refusing to make any attempt to learn how to speak, you are putting me
and all other vision impaired people at a serious disadvantage.
Learning speech to the best of your capability does you no harm except
making you miss an hour of inane sitcoms of TV five days a week.
Annette
Annette C. Hollmann
>On 22 Oct 1999 11:44:31 GMT, deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) took an
>electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and scribbled:
>>In a previous articles tls...@concentric.net (Roving Reporter) writes:
>>>The reason they don't wear hearing aids is that it's not rewarding.
>>>Make it rewarding and the problem is solved.
>>
>>That's what they're led to believe or encourage to think. They've been
>>brainwashed into thinking that "hearing aids" does not help from peer pressure,
>>etc.
>
>Excuse me, but I grew up with hearing aids. I wore hearing aids
>religiously as a kid because that's what everyone told me I needed and
>because there weren't any signers around. Was I happy with them? NO!
>
>As soon as I found out about Deaf people and sign language, I felt
>liberated!!!
What about having access to both?
One of the speedskaters for East Texas just got CI last year.
He made it to National Championships for the first time because he can now
hear the starter gun go off instead of relying on visual info.
He also does better on relays because he can hear his partner yelling "up"
before passing on the tag.
BTW he uses ASL and speech, which is what seems to be the best option for
many deaf people I know.
Annette
Wen-King Su
:
;
;
:>>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).
Read what I wrote again.
:> 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).
No it does not mean that. "Observeable fact" means facts that have
the attribute of being observeable.
;> 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.
It is not supposed to. No more than "a contestant gets picked" expound
who or what was the beauty queen to begin with that attributed to her own
being picked.
Wen-King Su
:
;In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su) writes:
:
;>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.
;Wen, who are you to judge what deaf people can or can't do, that you know it
:all ? huh ?
Depends on the context of "can't". If you mean by "can't" as something they
are capable of doing but they shouldn't be doing it, then as I have said before
I am not one to tell them what they can or cannot do. But if you mean "can't"
as in physically impossible, as in the context of the above quoted material,
then yes Physics says they can't.
Without the audio information available to the hearing people, deaf people
will always have great difficulty -- in the form of missing out a large
part of the conversation, or having to devote an unfair share of their
mental resources, or both -- while trying to use speech. This is something
one can very well say from the stand point of physics, and in particular
information science.
In a previous article deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) writes:
:
;In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su)
:
;>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.
:
;It's not as simple as you make it sound out to be. First of all, what if the
:majority of hearing does not want to learn signs or feels they don't have the
;time to do so ? After all, it's "not their problem".
Then they are hypocrits. It is as simple as that.
;If you feel it's unfair to try to make the deaf hear or speak better, then how
:come it's different to try to force the hearing to learn signs ?
I have never made a blanket statement that says it is unfair to make the deaf
hear or speak better. I said neither oral and lip-reading, nor CI results in
achieving fairness for people who are deaf.
Wen-King Su
:>In a previous article ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) writes:
;>:
:>: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.
:
Then we have some mis-understanding. I don't call people whose hearing
can be helped by hearing aid deaf. They maybe Deaf, but they are not
deaf. But no matter, in cases where the quality of sound they can hear
with hearing aids is very poor, they still are going to have great 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.
:
;
:Society is
;(1) providing education in ASL
:(2) providing ASL interpreters
;(3) providing hearing aids and CI and constantly trying to improve those
:(4) providing ASL classes for those individuals who wish to learn ASL.
;(5) providing speech and lipreading training for deaf people so they can
:meet the hearing people half-way.
;
:Relying ONLY on ASL, and rejecting hearing aids, CI, and lipreading is a
;lazy cop-out.
Which has nothing to do with the question: in a society that values
fairness, what should members of the society have done? It doesn't refute
the contention that 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 qualify as your "lazy cop-out" or not, the thing
for members of the society to do is to incorporate signing as a way its
members communicate.
;I have 20/400 vision, and can only use ASL in very good light and at a
:very close distance.
;It is quite possible that I may lose the rest of my vision.
:By refusing to make any attempt to learn how to speak, you are putting me
;and all other vision impaired people at a serious disadvantage.
How so? The vast majority of the society can speak.
;Learning speech to the best of your capability does you no harm except
:making you miss an hour of inane sitcoms of TV five days a week.
Again, that has nothing to do with the question: in a society that values
John Campbell
Perhaps, the problem has to do with parents and school staff and
administration and their inability to educate deaf children and raise
them properly? And the society at fault, too?
John
cvo...@gradin.cis.upenn.edu (Christian Vogler) wrote:
>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
John Campbell
mxr...@aol.com (MXROSS) wrote:
>>>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 was changed from oral to signer. I've seen some hearing changed like
that, but they wouldn't last long. Whenever I stop seeing them, they
would stop signing.
John Campbell
deaf...@aol.com (Deafmisc) wrote:
>Did it ever occur to that there are some deaf people happily functioning in a
>"bigger pond" ? And that they felt that the rewards of putting in the time and
>energy for speech and hearing were worth it, etc ?
>Again, for some reasons, you're just not around deaf people to show otherwise.
>I think maybe because of your job, you only get to meet those that "needs your
>help".
>You do not meet the ones with good oral, lipreading and language skills happily
>functioning in the "bigger pond". After all, they're the ones don't need your
>help, etc.....
How would you know they're happily functioning? Since they hang out
almost exclusively with just the "hearing world", do you get to meet
these people often?
I've met several. They're a loner... very quiet. They seem bored.
>Besides, I've read some of your postings where you claimed you were unhappy
>growing up being hard of hearing. Maybe, the problem wasn't your being hard of
>hearing, but your own attitude.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you should ask someone first, before you jump
into such error judgement. Then quit asking so many stupid questions,
which would annoy them.
>Thus why maybe you're not meeting more of the
>happily functioning deaf people out there from the "bigger pond" as in "birds
>of a feather flock together"...
An oral deaf is not always happy being in the big pond. Hearing birds
flock together well, deaf birds flock together well....
Roving Reporter
took an electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and
scribbled:
>>And by doing that, they automatically shut out all the blind people,
>>because totally blind people can't see sign language.
I feel obligated to interject here, Deaf-/blind people "feel" sign
language. Sign language is multi-modal.
>What about deaf people? Shouldn't blind people stop listening and
>talking and use sign language instead so deaf people could understand
>them? Deaf people can't hear, so they depend on their visual sense.
>Blind people can't see, so they depend on their auditory sense. One
>that depend totally on auditory sense would not be able to talk to one
>that depend totally on visual sense.
This is true, however, the number of blind people in the world is not
so large that this is an annoyance...it's the people who can see and
hear who annoy us.
>>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.
>
>There has to be a factor(s) that cause you to refuse to learn your
>multiplication tables. LD, lack of socializing, etc, etc.
I don't think the reason people do not learn speech has ANYTHING to do
with it being "a bother." Not being able to hear, even with hearing
aids, is a major impediment to developing speech. Or if you're from a
family that can't afford hearing aids, sometimes it's just out of your
grasp, as happens in some other countries. Yes, many hard of hearing
people learn speech, some with a fair amount of training, some with
less. But you can't apply that to deaf people with profound hearing
loss...for those who learn speech, it's taking a lot more than "a few
TV sitcoms a week" to learn. In fact, the oral-aural method also takes
time away from parents and other siblings. If you're going to do all
that, it makes more sense to do something fun and educational with
that time, like learning a sign language, instead of making it all
drudgery of phonics, blowing, and feelling people's throats to copy
the vibrations, and stuff like that.
John Campbell
>And by doing that, they automatically shut out all the blind people,
>because totally blind people can't see sign language.
What about deaf people? Shouldn't blind people stop listening and
talking and use sign language instead so deaf people could understand
them? Deaf people can't hear, so they depend on their visual sense.
Blind people can't see, so they depend on their auditory sense. One
that depend totally on auditory sense would not be able to talk to one
that depend totally on visual sense.
Are you blind (and hearing)?
>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.
There has to be a factor(s) that cause you to refuse to learn your
multiplication tables. LD, lack of socializing, etc, etc.
John
Annette C. Hollmann
>ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) wrote:
>
>>And by doing that, they automatically shut out all the blind people,
>>because totally blind people can't see sign language.
>
>What about deaf people? Shouldn't blind people stop listening and
>talking and use sign language instead so deaf people could understand
>them? Deaf people can't hear, so they depend on their visual sense.
>Blind people can't see, so they depend on their auditory sense. One
>that depend totally on auditory sense would not be able to talk to one
>that depend totally on visual sense.
>
>Are you blind (and hearing)?
I have almost no vision (20/400), and can use ASL to talk with my deaf
friends if we are in a well-lit area and they slow down. Even some
rudimentary use of speech in parallel with the ASL is a great help,
especially when the light is suboptimal (about 90% of the time).
A couple of times I've wished for a set of neon-orange gloves to put on
someone, because he could not speak and I couldn't see enough to figure
out the ASL. I ended up having to tell him to hold that thought 'til we
get into some decent light.
With someone who can speak, even if it sounds way different than a hearing
person, I can use ASL so they don't have to lipread, and they can use
speech if it's too dark for me to see.
>
>>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.
>
>There has to be a factor(s) that cause you to refuse to learn your
>multiplication tables. LD, lack of socializing, etc, etc.
>
>John
I used to teach remedial math.
The main factor in refusal to learn the multiplication tables appeared to
be unrestricted access to Nintendo, combined with a boring way to learn
math.
When I hacked together a rudimentary math nintendo (I'm an amateur
programmer) it solved the problem, even though I must admit my graphics
are chintzy.
Annette
P.S. My ASL nickname is "bat" (as in blind as a ...)
Mike McConnell
>> ;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).
> Read what I wrote again.
No. You need to rewrite what you wrote. It *was* thought to be a
tautological "truth" back in Darwin's time when at time they thought
they truly knew. Like I said, people have attempted to rehash the
meaning of the "survival of fittest" so many times but don't realize
that "fittest" is the obstacle that needs to be surpassed. The theory
cannot stand by itself because we already knew that "fittest" doesn't
always mean "survival" and that's not a tautological truth.
"Differential reproductive success" is better since it avoids any
implicity about fittess. Wouldn't you agree?
>> 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).
> No it does not mean that. "Observeable fact" means facts that have
> the attribute of being observeable.
So what. It is an aspect about an observation to produce a fact. For
someone to say "It's an observable fact" is about something that has
already been observed to produced a fact. I was talking about in the
present tense concerning "observable fact" regarding "survival of the
fittest" whereas "fact" is a piece of information about circumstances
that exist or events that have occurred. Once you have the information
you'd have the means for an explanation. Fact implies truth.
"Survival of the fittest" is not a statement based on an observable
fact but merely a theory based on Darwin's own observations. Darwin
thought it was a fact in the first place but he reversed himself later
on what he said at the beginning. It is not an observable fact that
only the fittest will survive. Even the fittest ones can go extinct. It
is at best a statement or an assertion about a theory and not an
"observable fact" but it is no longer a theory since the hypothesis was
already tested and later on out of the window.
> ;> 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.
> It is not supposed to.
Then neither should "survival of the fittest" since "fittest", again,
is a contentious word to begin with. "Survival of the fittest" should
have been heaped into a garbage can a long time ago and not bothered
with in terms in part of the evolutionary theory.
Roving Reporter
Hollmann) took an electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and
scribbled:
>I used to teach remedial math.
>The main factor in refusal to learn the multiplication tables appeared to
>be unrestricted access to Nintendo, combined with a boring way to learn
>math.
>When I hacked together a rudimentary math nintendo (I'm an amateur
>programmer) it solved the problem, even though I must admit my graphics
>are chintzy.
*Admiring* You oughtta patent that! Or at least get it on the market
somehow!
>P.S. My ASL nickname is "bat" (as in blind as a ...)
I have a HH friend with Usher's Syndrome. She's told me that she is
getting pretty good at feeling fingerspelling. Unfortunately, since
she was pigeonholed into the "oral" method as a HH kid, she was never
exposed to ASL until she was well into adulthood. It's very unlikely
that she will learn more than a few signs. Like most Americans, she
has little faith in her ability to learn a second language.
I feel lucky that my stepmom who is bilingual in English and Spanish
showed me proof that one can know more than one language, and not only
that, I could see the advantages first-hand all the time, living in
Southern California. It just took me awhile to figure out which second
language was most possible for me to learn. (I've had Spanish, Latin,
and German lessons.)
Wen-King Su
:
;On 23 Oct 1999 03:14:50 GMT, ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C.
:Hollmann) took an electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and
;scribbled:
:>I used to teach remedial math.
;>The main factor in refusal to learn the multiplication tables appeared to
:>be unrestricted access to Nintendo, combined with a boring way to learn
;>math.
:>When I hacked together a rudimentary math nintendo (I'm an amateur
;>programmer) it solved the problem, even though I must admit my graphics
:>are chintzy.
;
:*Admiring* You oughtta patent that! Or at least get it on the market
;somehow!
:
;>P.S. My ASL nickname is "bat" (as in blind as a ...)
:
;I have a HH friend with Usher's Syndrome. She's told me that she is
:getting pretty good at feeling fingerspelling. Unfortunately, since
;she was pigeonholed into the "oral" method as a HH kid, she was never
:exposed to ASL until she was well into adulthood. It's very unlikely
;that she will learn more than a few signs. Like most Americans, she
:has little faith in her ability to learn a second language.
This reminds me of a show I saw on PBS earlier this year. It was part
of a serie of half-hour documentaries, each focusing on lives of people
around a different ethnic resturant. This one was about a Cajun resturant
in Seatle. The owner is deaf with Usher's Syndrome, which is apparently
occuring at higher frequency among the Cajun population. The resturant
employs deaf people, and has become a popular deaf gathering place in
Seatle. The owner talked about how much he enjoy signing, and how he is
preparing for blindness by learning to feel signs by hands. It is very
impressive to watch. At the time I saw the program, I looked through PBS
web site to see where I can order the video. I couldn't find the
information then. Now I couldn't even remember the exact name of the
show. I think it was "letter from lunchrette" or something like that.
Anybody has any ideas?
Annette C. Hollmann
>On 23 Oct 1999 03:14:50 GMT, ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C.
>Hollmann) took an electronic fuchsia crayon to bit.listserv.deaf-l and
>scribbled:
>>I used to teach remedial math.
>>The main factor in refusal to learn the multiplication tables appeared to
>>be unrestricted access to Nintendo, combined with a boring way to learn
>>math.
>>When I hacked together a rudimentary math nintendo (I'm an amateur
>>programmer) it solved the problem, even though I must admit my graphics
>>are chintzy.
>
>*Admiring* You oughtta patent that! Or at least get it on the market
>somehow!
It's still around somewhere, but I don't think there's a computer that
can run it, except maybe in a museum. It ran on a late 70's Model 100
Trash 80 portable from Radio SHack, with an 8 x 40 character LCD screen.
It was just a dinky Basic hack where your critter would be walking
along, happening to encounter multiplication "monsters" ten times it size.
If you got the multiplication wrong, you'd get "stomped" - the monster
would walk over your critter, squashing him totally flat for a second.
Then monster would leave, "dumping" the answer you missed before walking
off the screen, and your critter would come back up and keep walking. If
you got the answer right, the monster would go "poof" and blow up.
Rather violent and a tad obscene, but the kids loved it (and the grownups
thought it was totally disgusting).
It also had multiple levels, so a beginner could just do x2 and x5, and a
pro could go up to 12's
I have to write my thesis now, but if I ever get a chance later on I might
hack some more stuff for up to date computers. My software is all
freeware, at least until my career in cancer research goes bust ...
>
>>P.S. My ASL nickname is "bat" (as in blind as a ...)
>
>I have a HH friend with Usher's Syndrome. She's told me that she is
>getting pretty good at feeling fingerspelling. Unfortunately, since
>she was pigeonholed into the "oral" method as a HH kid, she was never
>exposed to ASL until she was well into adulthood. It's very unlikely
>that she will learn more than a few signs. Like most Americans, she
>has little faith in her ability to learn a second language.
I started out learning German, then English at 10, ASL at 20, and will be
taking the plunge into French at 31 (I got a job in Montreal). So I'm
averaging a language per decade.
I still kind of prefer the idea of ASL with reflective gloves over
using touch though <G>. Maybe I'm just wacky, but aren't scientists
supposed to be like that?
>
>I feel lucky that my stepmom who is bilingual in English and Spanish
>showed me proof that one can know more than one language, and not only
>that, I could see the advantages first-hand all the time, living in
>Southern California. It just took me awhile to figure out which second
>language was most possible for me to learn. (I've had Spanish, Latin,
>and German lessons.)
>
I think being multilingual helped me with computer programming - it's just
another language, so just grab a dictionary and go :-)
Annette
Jerome Tan
> selection criteria. The word "survive" can lead to fallacious
> reasoning if you use it without defining the conditions.
>
I think the general meaning of "survival fo the fittest" refers to animals.
They seldom reflect the human situation.
Regards/
Jerome
Prime: jt...@i-manila.com.ph
Secondary: y2k_bug_...@jtan.8m.com
ICQ: 1850588
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Wen-King Su
:
:>> ;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).
:
;> Read what I wrote again.
:
;No. You need to rewrite what you wrote. It *was* thought to be a
:tautological "truth" back in Darwin's time when at time they thought
;they truly knew. Like I said, people have attempted to rehash the
:meaning of the "survival of fittest" so many times but don't realize
;that "fittest" is the obstacle that needs to be surpassed. The theory
:cannot stand by itself because we already knew that "fittest" doesn't
;always mean "survival" and that's not a tautological truth.
:"Differential reproductive success" is better since it avoids any
;implicity about fittess. Wouldn't you agree?
We are talking about different theories. No more than is "the winning
of the winner of the beauty contest" a theory, "surivial of the fittest"
is not a theory either. "Fittest" always means "survival" as the fittests
are defined to be those who survived. Survival of the fittest is about
their surviving, and not about how or why they survived. If we replace
the word "fittest," it would have said "the survival of the ones who
survived". Their survival, which is a property of the environment, plus
those properites such as inheritance, mutations, etc, that are properites
of the evolving population, together accounts for all the life forms we
see today, according to the theory of evolution.
;> No it does not mean that. "Observeable fact" means facts that have
:> the attribute of being observeable.
;
:So what. It is an aspect about an observation to produce a fact.
No no. Observation allows one to discover fact. Facts exists
independent of whether anyone knows about it.
MXROSS
>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.
that is such a double standard, it is NOT fair of hearing people to require
speech but it IS fair of non-hearing people to require sign?!!
perhaps I misunderstand something here wen, and if so please help me to
understand.
It is a duty for all members of the society, and it is independent of what the
>deaf members do.
>
It is not a duty of this American society to cater to or neglect anyone's
needs. Every member of this society has the duty to ensure his or her own
rights. As a parent he or she has the right to raise their children the way
they see fit, not based on what others tell him/her what should be done. But
this is off the point, if your issue/question is fairness, please offer more
than one suggestion to resolve the fairness question instead of just repeating
your stand over and over without qualifying it. We all need to compromise a
litte.
Mark Ross
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/3173
Resident Actor
Cleveland Signstage Theatre
http://signstage.org/index.html
Wen-King Su
:
;> 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.
:
;that is such a double standard, it is NOT fair of hearing people to require
:speech but it IS fair of non-hearing people to require sign?!!
;perhaps I misunderstand something here wen, and if so please help me to
:understand.
Certainly. I have explained it several times in the past. Fairness does
not mean everyone should have the same chances, the same opportunities,
or even the same duties. It only means, for example, two persons who are
otherwise identical but differing only in aspects not related to the
performance of a job should have the same chances to get that job. A
society that values fairness would act to correct any unfairness so that
the above is achieved.
Deaf people cannot hear, and they cannot through lip reading or other
assisitive methods, use speech as well as hearing people can. However,
hearing people can learn to sign just as well as they can learn to speak
a second language. Hence the way to achieve fairness, for instance, in
jobs that otherwise does not require speech if everybody knew how to sign,
is for everyone to learn to sign.
: It is a duty for all members of the society, and it is independent of what the
;>deaf members do.
:>
;It is not a duty of this American society to cater to or neglect anyone's
:needs.
Do not confuse duty of fairness with charity. We already do lots of
things we don't like to do in the name of fairness, many of which are
down right revolting to the majority of us. Two examples I used before
-- we let O.J. walk free, and we let racists hold their rallies.
Mike McConnell
> We are talking about different theories. No more than is "the
> winning of the winner of the beauty contest" a theory, "surivial of
> the fittest"
> is not a theory either. "Fittest" always means "survival" as the
> fittests
> are defined to be those who survived.
I disagree. Therein lies the problem. Being the fittest certainly can
increase the odds dramatically in surviving but it is certainly not the
exception that being the fittest will in fact cause one to survive
regardless of the situation.
> Survival of the fittest is about
> their surviving, and not about how or why they survived.
You're making this as an absolute rule rather than a general rule with
some exceptions.
> If we replace
> the word "fittest," it would have said "the survival of the ones
> who survived".
.and replace the bothersome "fittest" problem.
> Their survival, which is a property of the environment, plus
> those properites such as inheritance, mutations, etc,
you're including the reproductive successes into "survival" when
survival was simply surviving and not about reproductive sucesses which
is why "differential reproductive success" already implies survival
that allows one to be able to reproduce successfully.
>> :So what. It is an aspect about an observation to produce a fact.
> No no. Observation allows one to discover fact. Facts exists
> independent of whether anyone knows about it.
I'm saying that "produce" means "an effect or result or to bring
about". Observations can bring about a fact. Fact is a piece of
information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred
Wen-King Su
:
;
;> winning of the winner of the beauty contest" a theory, "surivial of
:> the fittest"
;> is not a theory either. "Fittest" always means "survival" as the
:> fittests
;> are defined to be those who survived.
:
;I disagree. Therein lies the problem. Being the fittest certainly can
:increase the odds dramatically in surviving but it is certainly not the
;exception that being the fittest will in fact cause one to survive
:regardless of the situation.
Of course, being the fittest no more cause the fittest to survive than
being the beauty queen cause her to be selected the beauty queen. That
is because the fittests are defined to those who survied, and the beauty
queen defined to be the one the judges selected.
:> Survival of the fittest is about
;> their surviving, and not about how or why they survived.
:
;You're making this as an absolute rule rather than a general rule with
:some exceptions.
That is because it is a definition, and not a theory.
;> If we replace
:> the word "fittest," it would have said "the survival of the ones
;> who survived".
:
;.and replace the bothersome "fittest" problem.
Only for those who do not understand what "the fittest" mean in the
context of the "survial of the fittest".
;> Their survival, which is a property of the environment, plus
:> those properites such as inheritance, mutations, etc,
;
:you're including the reproductive successes into "survival" when
;survival was simply surviving and not about reproductive sucesses which
:is why "differential reproductive success" already implies survival
;that allows one to be able to reproduce successfully.
Reproduction is a property of the population, not of the environment.
"Survival of the fittest", being a property of the environment, does not
include reproductive success.
Mike McConnell
> ;I disagree. Therein lies the problem. Being the fittest
> certainly can
> :increase the odds dramatically in surviving but it is certainly
> not the
> ;exception that being the fittest will in fact cause one to survive
> :regardless of the situation.
> Of course, being the fittest no more cause the fittest to survive
> than being the beauty queen cause her to be selected the beauty queen.
Which is strange since you advocated that there is a 100 percent
correlation betweeen fittess and survival after I said that there isn't
a correlation since being the fittess doesn't mean one will survive
absolutely (correlation as in "those survive are the fittest" and
"those who are the fittest will survive" hence comes to the circular
reasoning problem).
..are you attempting somehow at saving face??
> :> Survival of the fittest is about
> ;> their surviving, and not about how or why they survived.
> ;You're making this as an absolute rule rather than a general rule
> with some exceptions.
> That is because it is a definition, and not a theory.
..and now you're calling it a "definition" in place of a "fact" when
the phrase itself is merely an attempt at a statement.
> ;> If we replace
> :> the word "fittest," it would have said "the survival of the ones
> ;> who survived".
> ;.and replace the bothersome "fittest" problem.
> Only for those who do not understand what "the fittest" mean in the
> context of the "survial of the fittest".
Which is all the better to drop "survival of the fittest". Such an old
and overly used descepit phrase/statement.
> ;> Their survival, which is a property of the environment, plus
> :> those properites such as inheritance, mutations, etc,
> :you're including the reproductive successes into "survival" when
> ;survival was simply surviving and not about reproductive sucesses
> which is why "differential reproductive success" already implies
> survival that allows one to be able to reproduce successfully.
> Reproduction is a property of the population, not of the
> environment.
So what? Environmental factors influences reproductive successes.
Wen-King Su
:
;
;> certainly can
:> :increase the odds dramatically in surviving but it is certainly
;> not the
:> ;exception that being the fittest will in fact cause one to survive
;> :regardless of the situation.
:
;> Of course, being the fittest no more cause the fittest to survive
:> than being the beauty queen cause her to be selected the beauty queen.
;
;Which is strange since you advocated that there is a 100 percent
:correlation betweeen fittess and survival after I said that there isn't
;a correlation since being the fittess doesn't mean one will survive
:absolutely (correlation as in "those survive are the fittest" and
;"those who are the fittest will survive" hence comes to the circular
:reasoning problem).
That is because what you said is wrong. Further more correlation does
not imply any specific causual relationship. In this case, being the
fittest is not the cause of an individual's surviving, no more than being
the beauty queen the cause of her being chosen by the judges to be the
beauty queen. The causual relationship is the other way around. Being
chosen by the judges to be the beauty queen is the cause of she being
named the beauty queen, and surviving the environment is the reason those
who survived being named the fittests.
:> :> Survival of the fittest is about
;> ;> their surviving, and not about how or why they survived.
:
;> ;You're making this as an absolute rule rather than a general rule
:> with some exceptions.
;
:> That is because it is a definition, and not a theory.
;
:..and now you're calling it a "definition" in place of a "fact" when
;the phrase itself is merely an attempt at a statement.
No, I am calling "the fittests is what we call those who survived" a
definition.
:> ;> Their survival, which is a property of the environment, plus
;> :> those properites such as inheritance, mutations, etc,
:
;> :you're including the reproductive successes into "survival" when
:> ;survival was simply surviving and not about reproductive sucesses
;> which is why "differential reproductive success" already implies
:> survival that allows one to be able to reproduce successfully.
;
:> Reproduction is a property of the population, not of the
;> environment.
:
;So what? Environmental factors influences reproductive successes.
You are falsely assuming that "survival of the fittest" applies only to
reproducing organisms.
Wen-King Su
;;I have a HH friend with Usher's Syndrome. She's told me that she is
::getting pretty good at feeling fingerspelling. Unfortunately, since
;;she was pigeonholed into the "oral" method as a HH kid, she was never
::exposed to ASL until she was well into adulthood. It's very unlikely
;;that she will learn more than a few signs. Like most Americans, she
::has little faith in her ability to learn a second language.
;
:This reminds me of a show I saw on PBS earlier this year. It was part
;of a serie of half-hour documentaries, each focusing on lives of people
:around a different ethnic resturant. This one was about a Cajun resturant
;in Seatle. The owner is deaf with Usher's Syndrome, which is apparently
:occuring at higher frequency among the Cajun population. The resturant
;employs deaf people, and has become a popular deaf gathering place in
:Seatle. The owner talked about how much he enjoy signing, and how he is
;preparing for blindness by learning to feel signs by hands. It is very
:impressive to watch. At the time I saw the program, I looked through PBS
;web site to see where I can order the video. I couldn't find the
:information then. Now I couldn't even remember the exact name of the
;show. I think it was "letter from lunchrette" or something like that.
:Anybody has any ideas?
Ok, the name of the serie is "Listening at the Luncheonette", but I don't
know the name of the episode. The episode consists almost entirely of
narrated signing interview with owner, employees, and patrons. And it
is in Portland Oregon, not Seatle. Anyone knows how to find out more
details and where to get the video?
Jerome Tan
> you know it
> all ? huh ?
>
> language skills.
> To the point that they hang out almost exclusively with just the "hearing
> world".
>
> You have a tendency to think in terms of "Can't". If that's the
> case, then why
> don't you apply that to yourself ! As in YOU can't do this, YOU
> can't do that.
> And stop applying that "Can't" attitude to the deaf people....
>
>
>
I'm curious if hanging out with hearing people by letting them write on
paper while you talk to make communication easy for both would be acceptable
to most hearing person?
Jerome Tan
human ears on highly induce noise situations? I wonder if we could have
those kinds of products accessible to hard of hearing and deaf in order to
make us perform better.
Regards/
Jerome
Prime: jt...@i-manila.com.ph
Secondary: y2k_bug_...@jtan.8m.com
ICQ: 1850588
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deafmisc [mailto:deaf...@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 7:25 PM
> To: bit.lists...@list.deja.com
> Subject: Re: Implants....Y'all Hear?
>
>
> Message from the Deja.com forum:
> bit.listserv.deaf-l
> Your subscription is set to individual email delivery
> >
> In a previous article wen-...@myri.com (Wen-King Su)
>
> >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.
> >
> >
>
> It's not as simple as you make it sound out to be. First of all,
> what if the
> majority of hearing does not want to learn signs or feels they
> don't have the
> time to do so ? After all, it's "not their problem".
>
> For instance, which is easier, try making 1,000 people accommodate the 10
> people or make the 10 people accommodate the 1,000 ? Do the math.
> It doesn't
> take a rocket scientist to figure that out, etc...
>
> Would making hearing people learn signs place them at a
> disadvantage ? As in
> the saying "You can't teach old a dog new tricks". Not all
> hearing people are
> even that capable of learning signs, yet alone a new language.
>
> If you feel it's unfair to try to make the deaf hear or speak
> better, then how
> come it's different to try to force the hearing to learn signs ?
>
> If some of you insist on having this "the Deaf can't do this or
> that" attitude
> as in "they can't learn to hear and speak better", then I believe
> "Technology"
> and not twisting hearing people to learn signs is probably the
> more appropriate
> answer in the future, etc.
>
> Besides, did it ever occur to you that perhaps it'll be easier
> and easier to
> teach the deaf to speak and hear in the future. With Technology
> and Science
> advancing all the time, at a rapid pace. There's where the
> momentum is heading,
> etc..
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Deja.com: Before you buy.
> http://www.deja.com/
> * To modify or remove your subscription, go to
> http://www.deja.com/edit_sub.xp?group=bit.listserv.deaf-l
> * Read this thread at
>
> http://www.deja.com/thread/%3C19991022072505.26922.00000370%40ng-b
j1.aol.com%3E
Annette C. Hollmann
>I'm curious if hanging out with hearing people by letting them write on
>paper while you talk to make communication easy for both would be acceptable
>to most hearing person?
>
Seems ok to me :-)
Annette
Mike McConnell
> ;> Of course, being the fittest no more cause the fittest to
> survive
> :> than being the beauty queen cause her to be selected the beauty
> queen.
> ;Which is strange since you advocated that there is a 100 percent
> :correlation betweeen fittess and survival after I said that there
> isn't a correlation since being the fittess doesn't mean one will
> survive absolutely (correlation as in "those survive are the fittest"
> and "those who are the fittest will survive" hence comes to the
> circular reasoning problem).
> That is because what you said is wrong.
Oh god, please! Nothing is worse than trying to save face by
back-peddling.
Mike (post 185):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.
Wen's response (post 186):There is no weakness. Correlation is 100%.
The --------------------------fittest *IS* what we call the ones who
--------------------------survived
Correlation is about a reciprocal relation between two (or more)
things. Mutually interchangeable. You have adamantly said there is
100% correlation of which by now you jump over a non-correlation
comment using a one-way causative relationship.
> Further more correlation does not imply any specific causual
> relationship.
It can. It can imply about a reciprocal causative relationship between
two things as I've tried to point out where it cannot with the
"survival of the fittest" phrase (i.e. fittest doesn't mean one will
survive, and survival doesn't mean that one is the fittest). Remember
that circular reasoning I brought up earlier? Of course, you're jumping
over to a one-way causal relationship now.
> In this case, being the fittest is not the cause of an individual's
> surviving,
That's what I've been saying all along.
> The causual relationship is the other
> way around..... and surviving the environment is the reason those who
> survived being named the fittests.
Even with this causal relationship I disagree. Several varieties of a
specie can survive but which one is the fittest? It's the implication
of "fittest" that turns out to be the problem which I've been pointing
it out all along.
> :> :> Survival of the fittest is about
> ;> ;> their surviving, and not about how or why they survived.
> :
> ;> ;You're making this as an absolute rule rather than a general
> > rule with some exceptions.
> :> That is because it is a definition, and not a theory.
> :..and now you're calling it a "definition" in place of a "fact"
> when the phrase itself is merely an attempt at a statement.
> No, I am calling "the fittests is what we call those who survived"
> a definition.
So, it's not a statement then?
> :> ;> Their survival, which is a property of the environment, plus
> ;> :> those properites such as inheritance, mutations, etc,
> ;> :you're including the reproductive successes into "survival"
> >when survival was simply surviving and not about reproductive
> >sucesses which is why "differential reproductive success" already
> >implies survival that allows one to be able to reproduce >
>successfully.
> :> Reproduction is a property of the population, not of the
> ;> environment.
> ;So what? Environmental factors influences reproductive successes.
> You are falsely assuming that "survival of the fittest" applies
> only to reproducing organisms.
Huh? You're not making any sense here. I've rejected the
phrase/statement "survival of the fittest" in the first place because
of the circular reasoning it poses for any biological entities.
Wen, knock off the back-peddling attempts just to save face.
Wen-King Su
;Oh god, please! Nothing is worse than trying to save face by
:back-peddling.
;
:Mike (post 185):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.
;
:Wen's response (post 186):There is no weakness. Correlation is 100%.
;The --------------------------fittest *IS* what we call the ones who
:--------------------------survived
Please show how repeating what I have always said constitutes
back peddling.
;Correlation is about a reciprocal relation between two (or more)
:things. Mutually interchangeable.
So? Correlation does not imply any causual relationship, it only imply
a relation of coincidential occurance. Now to repeat the part the you
have failed to understand and address fully: In this case, being the
fittest is not the cause of an individual's surviving, no more than being
the beauty queen the cause of her being chosen by the judges to be the
beauty queen. The causual relationship is the other way around. Being
chosen by the judges to be the beauty queen is the cause of she being
named the beauty queen, and surviving the environment is the reason those
who survived being named the fittests. Hence the correlation is 100%
because we call the ones who survived the fittests.
;> The causual relationship is the other
:> way around..... and surviving the environment is the reason those who
;> survived being named the fittests.
:
;Even with this causal relationship I disagree. Several varieties of a
:specie can survive but which one is the fittest? It's the implication
;of "fittest" that turns out to be the problem which I've been pointing
:it out all along.
By definition, the ones who survived all belong to the set we call the
fittests. No problem with that.
;> :> :> Survival of the fittest is about
:> ;> ;> their surviving, and not about how or why they survived.
;> :
:
;> ;> ;You're making this as an absolute rule rather than a general
:> > rule with some exceptions.
;
:> :> That is because it is a definition, and not a theory.
;
:> :..and now you're calling it a "definition" in place of a "fact"
;> when the phrase itself is merely an attempt at a statement.
:
;> No, I am calling "the fittests is what we call those who survived"
:> a definition.
;
:So, it's not a statement then?
I said it is not a theory, and not a fact. "the fittests is what we
call those who survived" a definition.
:> :> ;> Their survival, which is a property of the environment, plus
;> ;> :> those properites such as inheritance, mutations, etc,
:
;> ;> :you're including the reproductive successes into "survival"
:> >when survival was simply surviving and not about reproductive
;> >sucesses which is why "differential reproductive success" already
:> >implies survival that allows one to be able to reproduce >
;>successfully.
:
;> :> Reproduction is a property of the population, not of the
:> ;> environment.
;
:> ;So what? Environmental factors influences reproductive successes.
;
:> You are falsely assuming that "survival of the fittest" applies
;> only to reproducing organisms.
:
;Huh? You're not making any sense here. I've rejected the
:phrase/statement "survival of the fittest" in the first place because
;of the circular reasoning it poses for any biological entities.
Please show there to be a circular reasoning. "Survival of the fittest"
certainly would apply to a herd of mules. If after a flood, the ones who
happens to by luck or by genetic pre-disposition, have made their way to
the higher ground and survived the flood, those are the ones who are
called the fittest. Yet they can't reproduce at all. "Survival of the
fittest" doesn't have anything to do with reproduction at all. It only
has to do with the survival of those who survived (aka the fittests).
;Wen, knock off the back-peddling attempts just to save face.
Please show there to be a back-peddling.
Mike McConnell
>>>Which is strange since you advocated that there is a 100 percent
>>>correlation betweeen fittess and survival after I said that there
>>>isn't a correlation since being the fittess doesn't mean one will
>>>>survive absolutely.
>>> That is because what you said is wrong.
>> ;Oh god, please! Nothing is worse than trying to save face by
>> :back-peddling.
>> :Mike (post 185):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.
>> :Wen's response (post 186):There is no weakness. Correlation is
>> ---------------------------100%. The fittest *IS* what we call the
>> ---------------------------ones who survived.
> Please show how repeating what I have always said constitutes
> back peddling.
Again?
I said there is no correlation in "survival of the fittest".
You said there is a 100% correlation. A 100% positive correlation and
certainly not a negative correlation to be sure.
I responded that "being the fittest certainly can increase the odds
dramatically in surviving but it is certainly not the exception that
being the fittest will in fact cause one to survive regardless (i.e. a
100% positive correlation..a direct causal relationship...a guaranteed
statement...of which all of it is bunk).
You said "Of course, being the fittest no more cause the fittest to
survive than being the beauty queen cause her to be selected the beauty
queen".
And you jumped over to a one-way causal relationship by exclaiming,
"Further more correlation does not imply any specific causual
relationship. In this case, being the fittest is not the cause of an
individual's surviving, no more than being the beauty queen
the cause of her being chosen by the judges to be the beauty queen. The
causual relationship is the other way around.....and surviving the
environment is the reason those who survived being named the fittests"
(i.e. surviving (the environment) causes them to be the fittests).
Why did you jump from a correlation to a one-way casaul relationship?
Again, fittest is a superlative term that means the best. Which,
again, is a problem concerning the statement "survival of the fittest".
Of course, correlation doesn't infer causality but only the degree of
the relationship between the two. You stated that there is a 100
percent correlation when in fact there is a high degree of correlation
between fittest and survival. Increasing fitness increases the odds in
surviving and to survive increases the odds of being/becoming the
fittest. This is why I said "Being the fittest certainly can increase
the odds dramatically in surviving but it is certainly not the
exception that being the fittest will in fact cause one to survive
(i.e. a 100% correlation). Natural selection is all about differential
survival and reproductive sucesses. A game of chance. Probabilities.
>> Correlation is about a reciprocal relation between two (or more)
>> things. Mutually interchangeable.
> So? Correlation does not imply any causual relationship, it only
> imply a relation of coincidential occurance.
A degree of the relationship. It can be 100 percent which is purely
causative. In this case, it is not.
> Now to repeat the part the you have failed to understand and address
> fully:
No. I didn't fail to understand. You did. Since you said there is a 100
percent correlation when it is actually a degree of correlation in the
relationship between the two.
> In this case, being the fittest is not the cause of an individual's
> surviving, no more than being the beauty queen the cause of her being
> chosen by the judges to be the beauty queen. The causual
relationship > is the other way around. Being chosen by the judges to
be the beauty > queen is the cause of she being named the beauty queen,
and surviving > the environment is the reason those who survived being
named the
> fittests. Hence the correlation is 100% because we call the ones who
> survived the fittests.
It is a degree of the relationship. It is not "if you survive
absolutely you are then absolutely the fittest". You can become the
fittest or become a part of a fit group that survived. Several
different members of a taxonomic group can survive but it doesn't make
one member any more fitter than the other. Natural selection is a
dynamic process and weeds out the unfit, fit, and fittest ones. Of
course, those who are deemed to be the fittest have a higher chance at
surviving but it's certainly not a 100 percent guarantee that they will
survive regardless.
> > The causual relationship is the other
> > way around..... and surviving the environment is the reason
> > those who survived being named the fittests.
> Even with this causal relationship I disagree. Several varieties
> of a specie can survive but which one is the fittest? It's the
> implication of "fittest" that turns out to be the problem which I've
> been pointing it out all along.
> By definition, the ones who survived all belong to the set we call
> the fittests. No problem with that.
You might not have a problem. It is still the implication behind
"fittest" to begin with.
>>> No, I am calling "the fittests is what we call those who
>>> survived" a definition.
>> :So, it's not a statement then?
> I said it is not a theory, and not a fact. "the fittests is what
> we call those who survived" a definition.
Ok. Whatever.
>>>> Reproduction is a property of the population, not of the
>>>> environment.
>>> So what? Environmental factors influences reproductive
>>> successes.
>> You are falsely assuming that "survival of the fittest" applies
>> only to reproducing organisms.
> ;Huh? You're not making any sense here. I've rejected the
> :phrase/statement "survival of the fittest" in the first place
> because of the circular reasoning it poses for any biological > >
entities.
> Please show there to be a circular reasoning.
"The fittest survive, therefore they are fittest and survive". And
since "the survival of the fittest" is not a testable theory and not
even a fact (but of course, only to you), but a tautology. Which one
survives? The fittest. Who are they? Those that survive. It proposes no
criterion of fitness other than that of survival itself. They are
simply survivors.
> "Survival of the
> fittest" certainly would apply to a herd of mules. If after a flood,
> the ones who happens to by luck or by genetic pre-disposition, have
> made their way to
> the higher ground and survived the flood, those are the ones who
> are called the fittest.
Again, they are simply called survivors and nothing else.
Time and time again I said that "survival of the fittest" ought to have
been thrown out in the first place and not bothered with since it
causes so much confusions. It's an old and decrepit phrase which its
own stand alone statement can't muster any truths or facts.
Wen-King Su
:> Please show how repeating what I have always said constitutes
;> back peddling.
:
;
:Again?
;
:I said there is no correlation in "survival of the fittest".
;
:You said there is a 100% correlation. A 100% positive correlation and
;certainly not a negative correlation to be sure.
:
;I responded that "being the fittest certainly can increase the odds
:dramatically in surviving but it is certainly not the exception that
;being the fittest will in fact cause one to survive regardless (i.e. a
:100% positive correlation..a direct causal relationship...a guaranteed
;statement...of which all of it is bunk).
:
;
:You said "Of course, being the fittest no more cause the fittest to
;survive than being the beauty queen cause her to be selected the beauty
:queen".
;
:
;And you jumped over to a one-way causal relationship by exclaiming,
:"Further more correlation does not imply any specific causual
;relationship. In this case, being the fittest is not the cause of an
:individual's surviving, no more than being the beauty queen
;the cause of her being chosen by the judges to be the beauty queen. The
:causual relationship is the other way around.....and surviving the
;environment is the reason those who survived being named the fittests"
:(i.e. surviving (the environment) causes them to be the fittests).
;
:Why did you jump from a correlation to a one-way casaul relationship?
So? What is wrong with that? This one-way causual relationship implies
the correlation, but the correlation does not imply a causual relationship.
;Again, fittest is a superlative term that means the best. Which,
:again, is a problem concerning the statement "survival of the fittest".
No it isn't, not in the phrase "survival of the fittest". "The fittest"
is here defined to be the ones who survived.
:>> Correlation is about a reciprocal relation between two (or more)
;>> things. Mutually interchangeable.
:
;> So? Correlation does not imply any causual relationship, it only
:> imply a relation of coincidential occurance.
;
:A degree of the relationship. It can be 100 percent which is purely
;causative. In this case, it is not.
Wrong, even if it is 100% it still does not imply the existance of a
causative relationship.
:> ;Huh? You're not making any sense here. I've rejected the
;> :phrase/statement "survival of the fittest" in the first place
:> because of the circular reasoning it poses for any biological > >
;entities.
:
;> Please show there to be a circular reasoning.
:
;"The fittest survive, therefore they are fittest and survive". And
:since "the survival of the fittest" is not a testable theory and not
;even a fact (but of course, only to you), but a tautology. Which one
:survives? The fittest. Who are they? Those that survive. It proposes no
;criterion of fitness other than that of survival itself. They are
:simply survivors.
That something survives the environment is a fact. I don't think even
you are willing to challenge that. "Survival of the fittest" isn't about
criterion of "fitness", it is about the survival of those who we call the
fittest -- ie those who survived. The answer to "which one survived" is
not "the fittest". "The fittest" is, instead, the answer to the question
"what do we call the ones who survived". There is no circular reasoning
here, you have merely been asking questions that it is not supposed to
answer.
:> "Survival of the
;> fittest" certainly would apply to a herd of mules. If after a flood,
:> the ones who happens to by luck or by genetic pre-disposition, have
;> made their way to
:> the higher ground and survived the flood, those are the ones who
;> are called the fittest.
:
;Again, they are simply called survivors and nothing else.
Except "survivors" fail to connote a degree of consistency among those
who survived, but "the fittest" does.
Mike McConnell
> ;And you jumped over to a one-way causal relationship by
> exclaiming,
> :"Further more correlation does not imply any specific causual
> ;relationship. In this case, being the fittest is not the cause of
> an individual's surviving, no more than being the beauty queen
> ;the cause of her being chosen by the judges to be the beauty
> queen. The
> :causual relationship is the other way around.....and surviving the
> ;environment is the reason those who survived being named the
> fittests"
> :(i.e. surviving (the environment) causes them to be the fittests).
> :Why did you jump from a correlation to a one-way casaul
> relationship?
> So? What is wrong with that? This one-way causual relationship
> implies
> the correlation, but the correlation does not imply a causual
> relationship.
I'm talking about reciprocal relation (as in "two-way" relationships)
between two or more things. In this case they are "survival" and
"fittest". If you're saying that there is a 100% correlation between
the two then basically the two are mutually interchangeable with no
differences. In a statistics sense, a 100% correlation (+ or -)
produces a neat line at a (+,-)45 degree angle which means a R
coefficient of 1.0 ("a 100 % relationship"). This implies, in a sense,
a "causal" relationship even though correlations do not infer causal
relationships. By the way..it is spelled "causal" and not causaul.
If one says that a one-way causal relationship implies a 100 %
correlation (but it is about two-way (or more) relationships not one)
then it sounds like one is trying to imply it to be also a mutually
interchangeable relationships.
> ;Again, fittest is a superlative term that means the best. Which,
> :again, is a problem concerning the statement "survival of the
> fittest".
> No it isn't, not in the phrase "survival of the fittest". "The
> fittest" is here defined to be the ones who survived.
It is also an emphasis about "fittest". Even when attempting at a
collective sense,"the fittest", to represent a set, you will still have
to answer to the degree of consistency to those who survived in terms
of "fittest" or "fitness" which, again, also poses a problem.
You have "survivors"..those who simply survived and not about their
fitness but simply about fate and chance. But you will have
"survivors" who doesn't simply survived but survived because of the
level of fitness or adaptability or sheer will it had (e.g. lions
hunting down the slow young, old, or injured zebras leaving out the
healthier and faster ones). And then you have the reproductive
successes and such.
"Fittest" or "fitness" per se is problematic. And to go without saying
so, "survival of the fittest" is an old and decrepit phrase that
deserves a resting place in the garbage can.
Mike McConnell
> :> So? What is wrong with that? This one-way causual relationship
> ;> implies
> :> the correlation, but the correlation does not imply a causual
> ;> relationship.
> ;I'm talking about reciprocal relation (as in "two-way"
> relationships)
> :between two or more things. In this case they are "survival" and
> ;"fittest". If you're saying that there is a 100% correlation
> between
> :the two then basically the two are mutually interchangeable with
> no differences. In a statistics sense, a 100% correlation (+ or -)
> :produces a neat line at a (+,-)45 degree angle which means a R
> ;coefficient of 1.0 ("a 100 % relationship"). This implies, in a
> sense,
> :a "causal" relationship even though correlations do not infer
> causal
> ;relationships. By the way..it is spelled "causal" and not causaul.
> What do you mean by "implies, in a sense"? Are you saying logic is
> ambiguous? There is no such thing. Either it implies or it does
> not imply.
It's not Boolean logic "implies". Nor am I attempting to make it into
a logical sentence to make it as an either this or that . You have to
take the whole context for it to work, "This implies, in a sense, a
'causal' relationship". I used "in a sense" to mean figuratively and
used it in a sense that is tropical, not literal....figuratively
speaking. For the uniformed this 100% correlation would, to them,
imply a causal relationship but it is not in the first place.
Why did you go from a 100% correlation (which is a two-way (or more)
relationships and not causal) to a one-way causal relationship? I'm
still puzzled over this.
> :> ;Again, fittest is a superlative term that means the best.
> Which,
> ;> :again, is a problem concerning the statement "survival of the
> :> fittest".
> :> No it isn't, not in the phrase "survival of the fittest". "The
> ;> fittest" is here defined to be the ones who survived.
> ;It is also an emphasis about "fittest". Even when attempting at a
> :collective sense,"the fittest", to represent a set, you will
> still have
> ;to answer to the degree of consistency to those who survived in
> terms
> :of "fittest" or "fitness" which, again, also poses a problem.
> There is no problem in understanding that there exists a degree of
> consistency, and understanding that we do not have an answer to
> the exact
> nature of that consistency, for knowing the exact nature of it is
> not
> important in "survival of the fittest".
You keep saying it is not a problem. Even if you attempted at your
definition on "survival" and "the fittest" they address only one aspect
about survival in a population set. There are more. The meanings of
survival are different as well as the meanings of survivor(s). So is
the problem with "fittest" and "the fittest". And the problem in
connecting the two, whichever one choses, to make it into a defining
statement that covers a concept only partially even if the definition
are taken to be "true".
Again, it is still all the more problematic to try and keep "survival
of the fittest" when semantics are a problem. In keeping step with the
evolution or natural selection concepts of which one has to add other
additional concepts outside of the "survival of the fittest"
statement/phrase/concept to try and make it a more "whole and neater"
statement/phrase/concept. But it can't be kept any neater since it's
already a mess to begin with.
Wen-King Su
:> So? What is wrong with that? This one-way causual relationship
;> implies
:> the correlation, but the correlation does not imply a causual
;> relationship.
:
;I'm talking about reciprocal relation (as in "two-way" relationships)
:between two or more things. In this case they are "survival" and
;"fittest". If you're saying that there is a 100% correlation between
:the two then basically the two are mutually interchangeable with no
;differences. In a statistics sense, a 100% correlation (+ or -)
:produces a neat line at a (+,-)45 degree angle which means a R
;coefficient of 1.0 ("a 100 % relationship"). This implies, in a sense,
:a "causal" relationship even though correlations do not infer causal
;relationships. By the way..it is spelled "causal" and not causaul.
What do you mean by "implies, in a sense"? Are you saying logic is
ambiguous? There is no such thing. Either it implies or it does
not imply.
:> ;Again, fittest is a superlative term that means the best. Which,
;> :again, is a problem concerning the statement "survival of the
:> fittest".
;
:> No it isn't, not in the phrase "survival of the fittest". "The
;> fittest" is here defined to be the ones who survived.
:
;It is also an emphasis about "fittest". Even when attempting at a
:collective sense,"the fittest", to represent a set, you will still have
;to answer to the degree of consistency to those who survived in terms
:of "fittest" or "fitness" which, again, also poses a problem.
There is no problem in understanding that there exists a degree of
consistency, and understanding that we do not have an answer to the exact
nature of that consistency, for knowing the exact nature of it is not
important in "survival of the fittest". Instead, knowing that it exists
is important.
:You have "survivors"..those who simply survived and not about their
;fitness but simply about fate and chance. But you will have
:"survivors" who doesn't simply survived but survived because of the
;level of fitness or adaptability or sheer will it had (e.g. lions
:hunting down the slow young, old, or injured zebras leaving out the
;healthier and faster ones). And then you have the reproductive
:successes and such.
That is why "the fittest" is used instead of simply "the survivors". It
implies a degree of consistency beyond pure chance in who survived and
who does not. It conveys the notion that that the survivors to some
extent fits the consistency criteria.
Wen-King Su
;> What do you mean by "implies, in a sense"? Are you saying logic is
:> ambiguous? There is no such thing. Either it implies or it does
;> not imply.
:
;It's not Boolean logic "implies". Nor am I attempting to make it into
:a logical sentence to make it as an either this or that . You have to
;take the whole context for it to work, "This implies, in a sense, a
:'causal' relationship". I used "in a sense" to mean figuratively and
;used it in a sense that is tropical, not literal....figuratively
:speaking. For the uniformed this 100% correlation would, to them,
;imply a causal relationship but it is not in the first place.
Scientifically, that is called "hand waving."
:Why did you go from a 100% correlation (which is a two-way (or more)
;relationships and not causal) to a one-way causal relationship? I'm
:still puzzled over this.
What do you mean by "go from"? I am explaining the reason for there being
a 100% correlation. The survivors correlates 100% with the fittests
because "the fittests" is what whe call the survivors.
;> ;It is also an emphasis about "fittest". Even when attempting at a
:> :collective sense,"the fittest", to represent a set, you will
;> still have
:> ;to answer to the degree of consistency to those who survived in
;> terms
:> :of "fittest" or "fitness" which, again, also poses a problem.
;
:> There is no problem in understanding that there exists a degree of
;> consistency, and understanding that we do not have an answer to
:> the exact
;> nature of that consistency, for knowing the exact nature of it is
:> not
;> important in "survival of the fittest".
:
;You keep saying it is not a problem. Even if you attempted at your
:definition on "survival" and "the fittest" they address only one aspect
;about survival in a population set.
That is because only one aspect matters in "survival of the fittest",
as it only describes a propery of the environment.
kevy...@my-deja.com
what does it have to do with implants??
You guys are going around in the circle. Rest up!
-Buzz
Mike McConnell
> Scientifically, that is called "hand waving."
What you did is called "changing the subject".
I simply explained something from what you thought otherwise. If you
have trouble with that then I'm sorry to hear that.
> I am explaining the reason for there being
> a 100% correlation. The survivors correlates 100% with the
> fittests because "the fittests" is what whe call the survivors.
It's also called a post hoc rationalization.
> That is because only one aspect matters in "survival of the
> fittest",
> as it only describes a property of the environment.
You would think it's the case. It is still questionable and
unacceptable. Still the "statement" belongs to the bottom of the
garbage can. Sorry.