That doesn’t help your case. People who can’t read for neurological reasons are learning disabled.
IF you literally cannot process written language - in other words, are physically incapable of learning to do so - then you HAVE A DISABILITY. If you are physically unable to receive or interpret input from one of mankind’s basic senses - you HAVE A DISABILITY.
I noticed you acknowledged that fact earlier - that deafness was a disability - so why the hell are you even in this thread? To argue deaf people are just as valuable as hearing people? No one’s arguing the opposite!
Oh, Jesus fucking Christ. :rolleyes:
Well, that’s an interesting way of putting it, “a hearing restorative pill”. If you’ve been deaf from birth, then your hearing isn’t getting restored, because you never had it.
Adults who have been deaf since birth who get cochlear implants typically have very poor success rates, not because the implant doesn’t work, but because their brains can’t process the incoming information. The part of their brain that would normally develop to understand sound gets rewired for other purposes, and that rewiring can’t be undone. FMRIs done on deaf people show that the visual and speech centers of their brains activate when seeing visual information, even when the visual information isn’t signed language. Show the same visual information to a hearing person and only their visual centers activate.
Anyway, the point is that a magic pill to transform a (from birth) deaf adult into a hearing adult wouldn’t just have to fix the ears, it would have to rewire their brains. Give the same pill to a baby, and he’ll grow up with hearing. But give the pill to an adult, and he becomes a different person. It’s analogous though not perfectly to the hypothetical pill that turns gay people straight. You can’t do it without changing the person in a profound way.
Disability is such a catch-all. It’s basically saying you’re restricted from something. When the definition is so big it becomes necessary to make some distinctions.
Except that their parenting choices should be restricted. But that aside, deaf people have been forced to do things for decades. And still are, especially in ed.
Any culture goes away when the people are gone. If no one were deaf, it would be a thing of the past…but I can’t see that happening. Ever.
I believe in a full toolbox…but I don’t believe in forcing deaf people into acting like hearing people. It’s horribly cruel.
Restricting ASL has been the movement for decades. Now instead of ‘speech reading’ and ‘English sign’, educators and doctors are moving towards implants and amplified devices to ‘correct’ deafness.
This thread started because I pointed out that many deaf don’t see themselves as having deficits. Deficit implies you may have lost something or that you miss what you don’t have.
SOMEONE has to.
It’s been hinted.
*They can’t hear music.
They need adaptations.
They don’t know danger signs like police sirens.
They don’t…
They can’t…
It is better to…
*
Ideas like, “Well, I couldn’t/wouldn’t want to” or “Sound is what makes us human!” is what gives that impression. Really, when you constantly say to a group of people over and over again, “I’m trying to fix you and make you better!” that’s basically saying, “I am better than you.”
I think sexual identity is a little more closely linked to who we are as people than sensory processing. But sure, in large part, you’re right. So? Magic pill. Fixy-fixy.
And “I didn’t want to experience music anyway” is basically “Those grapes were probably sour.”
I was pointing out the complexities of disability - lack of knowledge, lack of ability, lack of adaptation. It’s just something I see in the education field. Learning disorder, cognitive disorder, mental disorder, etc., are all different. There are things you can’t cure, but there are things you can overcome.
I am in this thread because I was misrepresented in the OP. Duh.
Bear in mind that a hand-operated accelerator isn’t inherently more special than a foot-operated one. It’ s just less common.
I’m not arguing for a radical position. Like I said earlier, I do think deafness is a disability (and I think that someone who uses hand controls in a car probably is too). But on some level these are gut reactions.
The point I guess I’m trying to make is that I think it’s harder than people here are suggesting to identify how it is that we classify some differences among people as disabilities and some as just, well, differences.
Language and sexuality are the two most personal things humans have.
I promise you that my identity and my personality is inextricably linked to my sensory processing.
You are just not one to be reasoned with.
Misrepresented with that verbatim quote? Yeah, good luck with that theory, Newt.
Right. And, in some cases, therefore try to convince themselves that being deaf is really a great thing. Just like being kept as food was great.
Once they start advocating against things that can minimize the impact of their disability? Yes, I would. Not because I am better, but because their lives and the lives of other people, can be improved.
When a procedure becomes available that sometimes helps people in wheelchairs regain a limited ability to walk, and he turns it down because it will destroy his wheelchair culture and he would rather have his children use wheelchairs than walk, then it is the time to start explaining.
Regards,
Shodan
Only by the reasonable.
Humans are supposed to be able to hear. Deaf people cannot hear. It is a disability.
Someone once pointed out that restricting women in the military was so silly for modern times.
“In a world where missions are fought from aircraft, who cares if someone with a vagina is flying? It doesn’t take a dick to drop bombs.”
Sorry for the language, but this thread reminds me of that conversation. 
Look at the thread title, jerk.
Dial it back a notch.
Personal insults are not allowed in this forum. You’ve been told this before, and I’m giving you a formal warning here.
Realizing that CitizenPained feels misrepresented by the OP, this is still a discussion of issues, not a personal fight. Everyone needs to remember what forum we’re in here.
The thread title isn’t about you. Your comment in the other thread inspired a question in his mind, so he decided to start a thread about it. He specifically excised your name from the quote so as to avoid picking a fight. If he took the wrong meaning from your quote, all you have to do is pop in, and say “Hey, I didn’t mean to imply deafness wasn’t a disability - just that..” blah blah, whatever. Then your honor would be satisfied and we could get on with answering his dilemma.
Yes. And they are. They’re physically not capable of hearing. It doesn’t make them lesser human beings, doesn’t mean they should be patronized to, and doesn’t mean they should be forced to try medical interventions they don’t want. But “disability” means they are not able to do something, and it’s accurate.
Distinctions are fine. Using tenuous logic to carve out special exceptions because we don’t like the implications of the definition is not fine.
This is a very vague paraphrase. I believe the actual sentiment was that they should not be allowed to prevent their children from getting medical care that might treat their deafness.
That’s very unlikely. But I wasn’t the one who was concerned about what would happen to deaf culture.
In other words, they’re trying to fix the disability instead of forcing people to use other means to cope with it. That’s not wrong of them. If deaf people are being denied some tools that would help them, then that’s wrong. But I’d hope that’s a problem that will fade as implant technology improves.
I’m not sure it does imply that, but you’re right - I am sure deaf people aren’t just sitting around waiting for someone to give them hearing.
Actually I’m pretty sure everyone here already understood this. That’s the problem- you implied they didn’t.
No, it has not. The things you’re objecting to are factually true, and it’s entirely your own interpretation that they’re intended as a comment on deaf people. It’s true that deaf people can’t hear music. They can experience music - I remember attending a concert years ago and standing near a man who was evidently deaf; he was holding a large balloon and was feeling the vibrations through the skin of the balloon. But he wasn’t hearing it. More importantly, all of that stuff was stated in response to the following question:
They were not intended to deprecate deaf people. They were answers to a direct question about what you can’t do if you can’t hear.
Nobody said “sound is what makes us human” or anything like it. Saying you couldn’t live with deafness or wouldn’t want to might be impolite or even obnoxious (did anyone say it in this thread?) but it’s not a statement of superiority.
I knew you’d do that. 
But I’m done with the thread - why sit through abuse so others can feel dominant?
I put forth a point and clarified the OP and someone calling me names or me getting a warning doesn’t negate anything.