And yet the RNID spends so much money trying to prevent future hearing loss and deafness. Why do you suppose they do this if deafness isn’t a disability to be avoided if possible?
I do disagree.
The problem is that you think “All disabilities are the same.”
This idea that being born deaf is some horrible genetic flaw that must be fixed reminds me of ‘curing gayness’.
We discussed this upthread.
You are being disingenuous. I specificially noted that a deaf person can drive adequately, but obviously a hearing person has an advantage over a deaf or hearing impaired person, because the latter cannot receive auditory cues as well. I’ve narrowed avoided accidents because another drive was honking at me, and vice versa. Had I or the other driver been hearing impaired, the accident would have occurred.
Regarding your link: So what? Increased facility in one sense does not compensate for the loss of another. Otherwise blind ninja superheroes would exist outside of comic books and movies.
If this study is adequately verified, would you say that this increased peripheral vision totally compensates for being deaf?
It’s not just vision; it’s ‘hyper’ sense all around. Please show me where Deaf get into more car accidents than hearing people.
If deaf people were dysfunctional, I could concede to some of your points. But they aren’t. And last I checked, blind ninja superheroes did not exist IRL.
What?
Look, justanotherdeaf made this same argument with a similar cite a week ago. A marginal improvement in peripheral vision and depth perception would be helpful, but doesn’t cancel out the disadvantages that come with being deaf. And your cite only applies to people who become deaf early in life or are born deaf. Most deaf people are older.
My point is that there are no blind ninja superheroes, because, no matter how Hollywood & Marvel Comics have lied to us, losing one sense does not raise the others to superhuman levels.
Deaf and hearing impaired persons aren’t helpless; they should not be thought of or treated as invalids. They can do many things as well or nearly as well as the hearing. But it’s silly to think that they can do everything the hearing can. If you’re born deaf, you’re never going to be a great singer or musician (with the possible exception of being an excellent drummer), because you’re not getting the auditory feedback. Deaf persons have somewhat more difficuty achieving written English proficiency (though not insurmountably so) because of the intricate involvement of hearing with learning such a skill. And so forth.
I actually don’t like the word disability to describe deafness, as the literal meaning of the term doesn’t quite fit; handicap is more accurate. But the euphemism treadmill’s taken that one away from us.
Everything but hear.
I’m never going to be a great singer or musician and I can hear. It does not make me disabled.
Cite? English is a second language to most born deaf: of course it is a tiny bit more difficult.
If it isn’t, it should be: ASL is a natural language for the deaf and is no more difficult for a deaf child to learn than a hearing one learning a spoken language.
There’s nothing that says deaf kids can’t read English. In fact, they seem to do just fine, provided there is a primary language at birth. Like I said, there are hearing children of deaf adults whose second language is English.
edit: There are famous deaf musicians. The number of people born 100 per cent deaf is actually low: many are prelingually deaf. Those two are often put in the same category.
A disadvantage is not a disability.
I’m not sure I buy into this distinction, particularly if the disadvantage is severe. Why isn’t it a disability? Because the minority of people who are born deaf or go deaf early in life have an improvement in peripheral vision to help compensate for their deafness?
It’s that sixth sense - that spikey feeling on your back, the ‘knowing’ of something before it happens.
The disadvantage only arises when hearing people think it does, because it results in abuse and discrimination. Deaf people go to work, school, read, play, enjoy music (your treble clef is someone else’s bass), play sports, drive, etc. etc.
Is it that hard for you to understand that people could be different than you and still 100 per cent operational?
Consider Martha’s Vineyard: no one thought those people were ‘disabled’.
I don’t think deaf people have a sixth sense. If you think they do, why are you only citing minor improvements in vision that affect a minority of deaf people?
I’m getting tired of these strawman arguments. Is if your position that unless we agree with you totally - that deaf people aren’t disabled, that they can do everything hearing people can do, that being deaf is not any more disabling than other variations like being short or left-handed, that deaf people have a sixth sense that hearing people don’t - that we are discriminating against deaf people and think they are inferior?
I think a 6th sense is kind of hard to test, no? But all of these developments and research over the last 40+ years just confirm what deaf have long been saying about themselves. I expect it to continue.
Cite?
Wait, you don’t think that deaf are inferior?
Disabled, not inferior. We’ve been saying it all along.
Not my problem, since I’m not asserting that it exists. But that’s OK - I also asked you about the deaf having superior taste, smell, and touch, and I eagerly await your cite. So far you’ve turned ‘some deaf people have superior peripheral vision’ into ‘deaf people have four senses that are stronger, plus a sixth sense.’
I won’t even get into the fact that balance is often accepted as the sixth sense.
I’m not sure what you want me to cite, but I did make a typo. I was asking “Is it your position that unless we agree with you totally … we are discriminating against deaf people and think they are inferior?”
Are you so determined to be ‘right’ that you can’t understand that my ‘sixth sense’ comment was taken to be a bit poetic? I don’t know if there is a universal definition of a sixth sense, but deaf are considerably more aware of their surroundings. Deaf can identify deaf and hearing without voice (aka I see Deaf People), are potentially better drivers, and are often aware of their ‘accents’/muscle usage when speaking.
You are conditioned to live as a hearing person. Apparently you can’t grasp the idea that people can be conditioned otherwise.
Cite my positions.
Glad you don’t think this.
I’d rather be deaf than mentally ill.
I’ve been thinking about the statement that Deaf people can do everything but hear.
It’s true in a way, but hearing is the major way non-deaf people communicate. Yeah, it wouldn’t be a problem if everyone knew sign language, but the vast majority of people don’t.
I can’t think of many ‘common’ jobs that don’t require the ability to communicate with co-workers or clients or bosses or whoever. (By common I simply mean ones that lots of people are employed as. If your job is deciphering a newly discovered script, you probably don’t need to talk to many people. But there are millions of store clerks for every one cloistered researcher.)
In fact, of the various jobs I’ve had in my life, the only one I think I could have done just as well if I couldn’t hear was the summer I spent as a housekeeper in a nursing home. All the others, well, some things could have been accomplished (though more awkwardly) by relying on written communications, and but other tasks would simply have had to be pushed over to hearing coworkers.
You weren’t. Even if the “sixth sense” comment was not intended to be taken literally, you’ve continued to make the same unsupported point about deaf people having superior senses.
I’ve said repeatedly that I understand this. I still think deafness is still a disability.
What the hell do you want a cite for? I asked you a simple question about your own opinion.