Talking and listening seem to be a distraction to some hearing. They can’t always multitask
I was only half-serious when I brought up Indigo Children before, but…wow.
In some cases, that’s probably true. But I am sure some injuries or exposure to some substances could also cause deafness, for example.
If scientists find some kind of beneficial mutation that is associated with congenital deafness, then they might be right. I doubt it, but I’m not a geneticist. Regardless, that article doesn’t describe evolution. It describes deaf people adapting, but it doesn’t indicate that strength is passed on to their descendants (whether they are deaf or not). It also doesn’t differentiate between deafness that might be genetic and deafness that could be caused by something else. So that’s not an evolution issue.
I know, just that people are so fix on forced speech and hearing, and iam saying let them use visual language and be people of the eye if they want to, something good could come out of it down the road (future)
“People of the eye?” Please. This is kind of ridiculous. People who can hear still receive a great deal of information through their eyes in conversation. We notice people’s posture, whether they’re fidgeting, how confident they look, and all sorts of things like that. People are primarily visual, and most of us can see and hear. We use both when we communicate, so there is no dichotomy between “people of the eye” and everybody else. The article you linked to says that people who are deaf from birth or childhood have slightly better peripheral vision than people who aren’t deaf from an early age. That doesn’t mean the deaf are evolving into “people of the eye.”
If you feel that way. Let just agree to disagree
Btw, people of the eye is what some term themselves because they rely heavily on their eyes eapecially visual language
OK. I’m going to stand by my contention that it’s silly because unless you are blind or nearly blind, you rely heavily on your eyes.
Its artistic expression but blind people have tactile signing.
The idea is heavily promoted in the book of the same name by Harlan Lane, who also pushes the idea that the Deaf(always capitalized in the book, if I recall) should be considered an ethnic group.
Still think it was an artistic way to describe them
There is another way to describe people that cannot hear that doesn’t involve a 1/2 hour of exposition and euphemism.
Deaf.
Oh you mean disabled? 
No-I tend to mean what I say and vice-versa. Those that are deaf are disabled(lacking a commonly held ability), but not all those that are disabled are deaf.
If those that are deaf wish to use woo language like “People Of The Eye” they are welcome to do so, but I prefer language that explains, not hides.
That’s assuming that a hearing child can’t learn sign language – which is false. Actress Louise Fletcher was the child of death parents and when she won her Oscar for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest she signed along with her speech for the benefit of her parents.
Lon Chaney’s skills at being an actor in silent film came from pantomiming for his deaf parents.
I don’t think CIs are an answer – in fact, I’d be wary of getting my child one. (Isn’t one of the problems that they destroy any slight hearing a person may have?) That doesn’t mean I think they’re evil. Just…not an ideal solution.
My son was hearing impaired, and I am friends with several deaf persons. While they can function adequately without hearing, they cannot function perfectly without hearing, because they cannot receive auditory cues while, say, driving. (Which is not to say that they shouldn’t drive.)
I think the problem is that people tend to equate disabilty with inabilty or illness.
Like " Oh I’m a helpless cripple, and ALL I want is to function “normally” sort of thinking.
Disabilty isn’t nessarily a horrible thing. It just IS. Disabilty isn’t a disease or a sickness.
By your standards. :rolleyes:
No one functions ‘perfectly’.
In other related news:Why Deaf People See Better Than You
I feel very self-satisfactory right now.
Fine, more power to them. People have the right to make their own choices in life, and I can understand why someone who had spent their whole life with one set of senses wouldn’t want to add a different one. And I can understand why someone wouldn’t want to change something they feel is a core part of their identity.
But suppose a deaf parent has a baby who is born deaf, and an operation could give that child the ability to hear. And the operation is most effective if performed while they’re still an infant (so no waiting until they’re old enough to decide for themselves.) I think they should do it - in fact I think they have some moral obligation to do it. Do you disagree?
If you think (as some people apparently do) that the parent is fully justified in choosing to keep their child deaf, then do you feel the same way about other disabilities? E.g., the blind parent should be able to deny their child the ability to see?
Better stop that, you’ll go blind. 