Stupid people that should be put across the knees and spanked with the broom handle

[FinnAgain]

@cthiax

This is where I just don’t understand. If it is so monstrous, disgusting and so on to intentionally have a deaf child, and there is no practical difference in what the couple is thinking when they know that will be the result, why aren’t the straight couple obligated to go out of their way to avoid it? They do not ‘need’ to have their own biological child either. They have the same options the lesbians do.

Your analogy is hopelessly flawed. Instead of talking about a straight couple who could have kids together vs. a lesbian couple for whom that’s physically impossible, we should construct an accurate analogy.

If there was a straight couple where the woman was fertile but the man wasn’t, and they deliberately and with forethought attempted to choose a sperm doner so as to give their child a disability, then the analogy would stand. Or, likewise, if there was a magical lesbian couple [sup]tm[/sup] who could conceive a child together and both happened to be deaf, there’d be no problem. Just like with a straight couple. But that wasn’t the situation. They looked for a donor who’d give them the best chance for having a kid with a disability. That, is reprehensible. To bring life into this world and purposefully damage it? That is abhorent.

That you cannot see a difference between trying to give your child a disability by ** deliberately maximizing the risk**, and accepting the possibility of congenital disabilities if your partner has them… well, it’s odd, to say the least.

And, Miller, I’d suggest that your point of view is getting in the way a bit here. Being gay is a societally constructed disadvantage, and it shouldn’t be. Yes, assholes should not give people a hard time for the non-issue of who they choose to sleep with.

But choosing to make a child physically disabled is just wrong. As pointed out, that parents wouldn’t have a right to remove the child’s eardrums. Or if the parents were paralyzed, to shatter their child’s spine. Or if they were blind, to gauge out their child’s eyes. Choosing DNA which they hope will achieve the same result is not substantively different.

Being gay has societal negatives, not physical negatives. But being deaf means that a great many activities become more difficult. Try driving a car when you can’t hear people honking at you to alert you to danger, for example.

[Rysto]

@cthiax

This is where I just don’t understand. If it is so monstrous, disgusting and so on to intentionally have a deaf child, and there is no practical difference in what the couple is thinking when they know that will be the result, why aren’t the straight couple obligated to go out of their way to avoid it? They do not ‘need’ to have their own biological child either. They have the same options the lesbians do.

Because the lesbian couple needs a donor, any donor, to have a child. The straight couple doesn’t. The difference is in the intent, as I’ve said many times. The straight couple intends to have a child. Full stop. That’s their motivation. The lesbian couple intends to have a deaf child. To them, that the child is deaf is part of their motivation. The difference is between an accident and intention.

[Jackmannii]

@cthiax

Let’s say the donor and one of the lesbians were a straight couple. They met, fell in love, and had a baby. That baby was profoundly deaf. They have been informed that any baby they have will likely be profoundly deaf.

Can they have another baby without being monstrous, disgusting, abhorrent, and so on?

See my previous answer.

@FinnAgain

If there was a straight couple where the woman was fertile but the man wasn’t, and they deliberately and with forethought attempted to choose a sperm doner so as to give their child a disability, then the analogy would stand.

Ditto.

cthias, what exactly is the block that prevents you from acknowledging that profoundly deaf children created thanks to the efforts of this couple have no choice whatsoever when it comes to this facet of their existence? And that just maybe, they won’t be part of the “culture” that views deafness as a non-handicap?

For the record, I would feel the same way about parents with genetic dwarfism, absent limbs etc. who wanted to assure a child in their own image. “Sorry about your starting out life with these strikes against you, kid, but we thought it would be a neat thing.”

[Binarydrone]

But what if the couple were two men with a genetic predisposition for shaving their scrotums and rolling around in pudding while humming Pennies from Heaven and they sought out a surrogate mother with a mustache? Would you get all upset about that? You must see that this glaringly relevant analogy proves that you are all a bunch of bigoted hypocrites that just hate deaf lesbians.

[Ensign_Edison]

@FinnAgain

That you cannot see a difference between trying to give your child a disability by ** deliberately maximizing the risk**, and accepting the possibility of congenital disabilities if your partner has them… well, it’s odd, to say the least.

That you cannot see that there’s no functional difference between ALLOWING an outcome and INTENDING an outcome is…obtuse, to say the least. It’s not ‘accepting the possibility’, it’s knowing the probability and doing it anyway.

You are all claiming that the lesbians have a special chance to avoid what would happen if they could have their own children. But if they could, the same chance would exist. It is not a special chance at all.

My ‘flawed analogy’ isn’t an analogy. I’m not saying the situations are the same. I’m saying the outcome is the same: a deaf child the parents KNEW would be deaf. One which the parents could have avoided having. It couldn’t be any simpler. If you all want to argue that you just don’t like their attitude, that’s one thing, but you cannot claim there is any rational difference in outcome.

[psychobunny]

Let me say that personally, I could not imagine a non-hearing world that is as full and rich as the hearing one. I cannot imagine why someone would want to be deaf.

However, if you read more about this couple, you will find that they do feel this way. The words “handicapped” “birth defect” and “disability” keep being used here. For the parents in question, none of these apply as they don’t see deafness as any of the above. Now I see where one could argue, but having never been deaf, I am unable to judge the feelings of deaf people. They see deafness as a cultural difference, rather than a disability. They see it more as similar to an African-American couple wanting an African-American baby, even though it may face discrimination. They don’t understand why the mainstream hearing community is somehow considered to be superior to their own community.

In short, what we see as a disability, they see as a cultural difference. Again, not necessarily saying I agree, but remember that unlike many other “disabilities” deafness does not cause decreased lifespan, or any increased physical problems.

[cowgirl]

@FinnAgain

… They looked for a donor who’d give them the best chance for having a kid with a disability.

Please read cthiax’s post again:

@cthiax

And yes, I know some of you think being deaf is tragic. You mostly refuse to even acknowledge that some deaf people disagree with you; you refuse to respond to points made explaining why.

In other words,

@FinnAgain

Being gay is a societally constructed disadvantage, and it shouldn’t be.

Many deaf people (presumably including the lesbian couple in question) would say exactly the same thing about deafness.

[FinnAgain]

@cthiax

That you cannot see that there’s no functional difference between ALLOWING an outcome and INTENDING an outcome is…obtuse, to say the least. It’s not ‘accepting the possibility’, it’s knowing the probability and doing it anyway.

It’s like the Dumbergizer Bunny, it just keeps getting dumber and dumber and dumber and…

You, by the way, are the one who can’t see the difference between allowing an outcome and intending it. Hint: those who are intending it are the ones deliberately trying to cause it to happen.

And by the way, stop being so damn stupid. “accepting the possibility” is “knowing the probability and doing it anyway.”

@cthiax

You are all claiming that the lesbians have a special chance to avoid what would happen if they could have their own children. But if they could, the same chance would exist. It is not a special chance at all.

Damn, that too is dumb.
Yes, if they were magic lesbians [sup]tm[/sup] and they had their own children then they’d accept the risk. Just as if they were a straight couple who happened to be deaf. But that’s the wrong analogy, as I already pointed out. Take a straight couple who deliberately and with conscious forethought seeks to maximize the chance of genetic defects by selecting a donor with that defect.

But, again, they are fucking deliberately maximizing the risk. Are you really too dense to understand that?

@cthiax

My ‘flawed analogy’ isn’t an analogy.

Are you stupid, or a non-native speaker of English? It most certainly is an analogy.

@cthiax

I’m not saying the situations are the same. I’m saying the outcome is the same: a deaf child the parents KNEW would be deaf. One which the parents could have avoided having.

That’s an analogy, genius.

And you are being wilfully stupid, again. It’s not simply the outcome that matters, but how they get there. There are only so many ways one can phrase “deliberately maximizing”.

And, no, that’s part of why your analogy is flawed. In one case, the biological parents cannot choose to avoid the risk if they have children. In the other, they are deliberately maximizing the risk. For fuck’s sake do you have to work on being this dense, or does it come naturally?

@cthiax

It couldn’t be any simpler. If you all want to argue that you just don’t like their attitude, that’s one thing, but you cannot claim there is any rational difference in outcome.

It’s not just the outcome schmuck! It’s the in one case, the outcome was not necessary. Are you really too stupid to understand that?

@psychobunny

However, if you read more about this couple, you will find that they do feel this way. The words “handicapped” “birth defect” and “disability” keep being used here. For the parents in question, none of these apply as they don’t see deafness as any of the above.

But the parents are both wrong and stupid. Not having the use of hearing is a disability.

@psychobunny

Now I see where one could argue, but having never been deaf, I am unable to judge the feelings of deaf people.

WTF is this about ‘feelings’? Where do those enter into the equation? Is a physical structure of human anatomy damaged? Then it’s damaged. Are those who are damaged in such a way able to use hearing to analyze their enviornemnt? If they’re not, that’s a disability.

@psychobunny

They see deafness as a cultural difference, rather than a disability.

And I see an elephant as a poem in a ton of words rather than an animal.
It’ll still crush me if it steps on me.

@psychobunny

They see it more as similar to an African-American couple wanting an African-American baby, even though it may face discrimination.

Which is somewhere between wrong and stupid. It’s like saying there’s a culture of folks who are paralyzed so they’re going to try to make sure that their child is born being unable to walk, or what have you.

@psychobunny

They don’t understand why the mainstream hearing community is somehow considered to be superior to their own community.

Many states, for instance, have laws against driving with headphones on. The reason is, of course, objective; it lowers your ability to deal with the conditions of the road and degrades your situational awareness.

It is bullshit to claim that those who can hear are ‘superior’ to those who cannot, but deaf people are definitely at a disadvantage when it comes to certian activities.

@psychobunny

In short, what we see as a disability, they see as a cultural difference.

And their point of view won’t enable their child to hear someone shouting a warning or a car honking, etc… this seems to be postmodernism run wild. Who gives a fuck what their point of view is when it contradicts objective facts?

@psychobunny

Again, not necessarily saying I agree, but remember that unlike many other “disabilities” deafness does not cause decreased lifespan, or any increased physical problems.

No increased physical problems? In the right situations it sure as heck does. Not to mention that most people do not know ASL, so communication itself is difficult.

[FinnAgain]

@cowgirl

Please read cthiax’s post again:

It read it once. It was stupid then. While re-reading, it is still stupid. I suspect that if I read it yet again, it will stay stupid.

It is not a question of ‘point of view’. That’s neo-fluffy bunny bullshit. There is a objective physical condition which renders them unable to get auditory cues and makes communication difficult if they can’t read lips.

@cowgirl

Many deaf people (presumably including the lesbian couple in question) would say exactly the same thing about deafness.

Then they’re fucking morons. No matter what society thinks, a deaf person will never hear a car honking.

[Guinastasia]

I would have to ask-are these people who have been unable to hear since birth? No offense, but yes, I will say, “You don’t know what you’re missing.” I understand that they don’t know any other way, and thus, don’t feel that they are missing anything.

But tell me, anyone who has ever lost their hearing later on, doesn’t somehow miss it.

[cowgirl]

@FinnAgain

It read it once. It was stupid then. While re-reading, it is still stupid. I suspect that if I read it yet again, it will stay stupid.

So, if there was a deaf person here saying exactly what cthiax is indicating, you would call them stupid?

Because your judgement of their experience is superior to their judgement of their own experience? Their point of view is irrelevant, because you know better?

If that is an acceptable evaluation to make, then why is it not acceptable for a straight person to say that being gay is, despite what many gay people say, a disability? What if I (as a straight, hearing person) say it? How do I have any less authority than you (I presume, a straight, hearing person)?

[FinnAgain]

@Guinastasia

I would have to ask-are these people who have been unable to hear since birth? No offense, but yes, I will say, “You don’t know what you’re missing.” I understand that they don’t know any other way, and thus, don’t feel that they are missing anything.

But tell me, anyone who has ever lost their hearing later on, doesn’t somehow miss it.

But it’s not just that. I mean, if the only argument was “you can’t hear music, and music is neat” (or something similar), then there wouldn’t be such a clear cut issue.

But that isn’t the crux. The issue is objective, not subjective. Someone who is deaf cannot hear auditory cues, making driving in specific much more dangerous. Imagine walking down the street and being unable to hear someone screaming “Look out, get out of the way!” while something is about to crash into you. And communication is difficult. Lip reading does not always work at 100%, and not all people learn it. There are real, objective, negative consequences to lacking one’s hearing.

And while deaf people, like blind people, are certainly not ‘inferior’ to others, they are undeniable at a disadvantage in certain areas.

To argue otherwise is, as I said, some insane version of postmodern fluffy-bunnyism.

[Miller]

Seems to me the chief complaint about these women is that, basically, they aren’t properly horrified at being deaf. They think it’s not a big deal, that it might even be advantageous in certain circumstances. I admit, it seems odd to me, to say the least, but what with them actually being deaf, I think they’re in a better position to know how much of a disadvantage deafness actually is than anyone in this thread.

[cowgirl]

@FinnAgain

And while deaf people, like blind people, are certainly not ‘inferior’ to others, they are undeniable at a disadvantage in certain areas.

[devil’s advocate] Again, you could say the same about homosexuality. [/DA]

[FinnAgain]

@cowgirl

So, if there was a deaf person here saying exactly what cthiax is indicating, you would call them stupid?

Yes.

@cowgirl

Because your judgement of their experience is superior to their judgement of their own experience? Their point of view is irrelevant, because you know better?

What the fuck are you babbling about? What does personal experience or judgement have to do with the fact that there is objective damage which results in objective changes which leave someone at a disadvantage in certain situations?

You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

Can you hear a car honking if you’re deaf? No? Then it’s a fucking disadvantage if you want to drive, no matter what some fluffy-bunny moron wants to claim because of their ‘feelings’ and their ‘point of view.’

@cowgirl

If that is an acceptable evaluation to make, then why is it not acceptable for a straight person to say that being gay is, despite what many gay people say, a disability?

This is too fucking stupid for words.
Being gay is a societal negative.
Not being able to hear is an objective negative.

If being gay meant that you couldn’t hear a car coming up behind you as you walked on the street, than that too would be a disability.

@cowgirl

What if I (as a straight, hearing person) say it? How do I have any less authority than you (I presume, a straight, hearing person)?

What is this about authority? What the fuck kind of postmodern idiocy is this position?

Is there objective physical damage to human anatomy? Yes.
Does this objective physical damage result in objective disadvantages? Yes.

What the fuck else is there to say?

[FinnAgain]

@cowgirl

[devil’s advocate] Again, you could say the same about homosexuality. [/DA]

A-fucking-gain, only in a societal context. Homosexual people are able to do anything and everything just as well as their straight counterparts.

[FinnAgain]

@Miller

Seems to me the chief complaint about these women is that, basically, they aren’t properly horrified at being deaf.

Come on Miller. Do you honestly think that people here are saying that they should be horrified?!?

@Miller

They think it’s not a big deal, that it might even be advantageous in certain circumstances.

Again, come on. If it was such an advantage people would be blowing out their eardrums all the time.

@Miller

I admit, it seems odd to me, to say the least, but what with them actually being deaf, I think they’re in a better position to know how much of a disadvantage deafness actually is than anyone in this thread.

To a large degree, yes. But at the same time, a child without any physical disabilities is, rather obviously, host to fewer physical disabilities than one who has 'em.

Would you accept this same ‘logic’ if we were talking about a blind child? A paralyzed child? A child with trisomy 23? A child born without limbs?

What about if you had a child born with perfect physical structures, and then you deliberately maimed them. Would that be okay? Can you rip your child’s eardrums out because being deaf might not be such a big disadvantage?

[Binarydrone]

**, You may have a point there, but personally speaking that is not really where I am coming from on the issue. At the end of the day, the inability to hear is a disability. The car horn example is only the most glaring and obvious example. And this is not even beginning to touch ADA issues and all of the other reasonable accommodations that this particular disability costs society (although to be fair I would much rather see the money go there than, say, networks of secret CIA prisons).

The act of attempting to create another life in such a way as to maximize its chance of being disabled is, to me, pretty damn nasty. This would hold true for any couple of any gender/orientation. And this is not just a sentiment that I abstractly feel, but one I am living. Specifically, my spouse and I are in the process of adopting because both of us have some family medical traits that we are choosing to not pass along.

None of this is to deny that there is such a thing as Deaf Culture, and that said culture is somehow lacking. I think that is (at least for me) totally beside the point. At issue is that you have two people that are setting out to intentionally produce another human with less than the full set of tools at his disposal that will help him to survive and prosper. That is pretty foul.
**Miller

[Binarydrone]

And that post was for Miller, BTW.

[cowgirl]

@FinnAgain

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I understand that you are frustrated by my idiocy and the sheer stupidity of deaf people who have the audacity to assert that they are not disabled. However, I don’t think it’s necessary for you to address me in such a manner. I have been nothing less than respectful to you.

@FinnAgain

… what some fluffy-bunny moron …

See, now you’re resorting to attacks on a rather sizeable group of people, none of whom are here to defend themselves, and who have done nothing whatsoever to you except try to live their lives in peace. Do you expect this to convince anyone?

This is too fucking stupid for words.
Being gay is a societal negative.
Not being able to hear is an objective negative.

See, now this is a point that is valid and should be addressed. I agree that there is an objective disadvantage to not being able to hear; however, not being deaf I cannot fully appreciate it. I would imagine that there are some advantages as well. If it was purely a negative, strictly “objective changes which leave someone at a disadvantage in certain situations,” then why, pray, do people who actually know what it’s like to be deaf not consider it to be a disadvantage?

Oh. Right. Because they are stupid.

What the fuck else is there to say?

How about: How dare you call someone stupid, or a fluffy-bunny moron, because they have a different evaluation of their own experience than you do.