Maybe I Should Move to California

[Universe Prince]

BUt your willingness to settle the entire debate on one set of defined lines. . . not so princely.
Not so priceless.

And not what I said, either.

[Plane]

Oh, I see, so when Ami carefully brings in a dictionary definition, suddenly everyone elses opinions, even though they are valid as hell..matter not??

That is not remotely close to what I said.

Are we going to turn this board into a prove it with WIKI,  ENCYCLOPEDIA, ERIC ETC?

I don't recall suggesting anyone had to prove anything with a dictionary or an encycolpedia.

Then, we will become as disabled ----and not able to form honest thoughts and facts from experience (Sirs did that tonight, and well I might add)

I'm not sure why Sirs honest thoughts and experience outweigh the honest thoughts and experience of the deaf couple.

I am not saying that the definition of the word Ami posted is incorrect, but we have become a venue of "**prove it with DICTIONARIES AND LINKS"**.??

I don't recall demanding anyone prove anything with dictionaries and links.

This thread is diving into the surreal.

Perhaps, but that would not be my fault.

Chill and let others speak without resting your case on one definition to WIN a point.

I am.

It's folks like you guys who, frankly scare away others from posting here.

You want me to take a weak and easily swayed stance so that other people won't scared away?

Fear of not reading the dictionary? Do they have fear of running up against the likes of the "is" and the definition of "is" factor?
Give me a break.

I don't know. Do they?

The discussion ended way back when Sirs made his point, Prince.
I am not trying to be meanspirited here, but you are beating the death out of the horse.

I see. So you think I should have shut up and been silent, regardless of what I think.

NOw, you are saying that Ami, (who i might add is brilliant) is the FINAL ANSWER?

No, Cynthia, that is not what I said.

sHEESH.....this gate has to offer more.

More? I thought you were just arguing it should offer less. Or maybe just that I should offer less. I confess, I was not aware that my expectations of something better than "because I say so" arguments was a threat to newcomers, or that such was an inferior position. While I certainly see no reason to sacrifice my standards for being persuaded, I will certainly be willing to sacrifice my presence here if it is an undue burden on the Saloon. I'll step aside and let the "better" members get back to important matters without my apparently grievous comments to drag the forum down and scaring people away.

Don't fish so hard , your standards are plenty good.

Apparently you have a new definition for "disabled" and I would like to see it.

[Amianthus]

I agree. But the deaf couple is not in disagreement about the meaning of "disability". They are in disagreement that deafness is a disability.

So? If a color blind person says that he or she does not have to stop for a red light, because FOR THEM it's not red, is that a valid choice?

Regardless of whether or not the parents think they are disabled, they do not, in fact, have use of a facility that other humans do. They are, by definition, disabled. They might refuse to accept aid for the disabled, and they might refuse to be treated as disabled, but since they cannot hear, they do have a disability. And a potentially life threatening one at that.

[Amianthus]

Those people are robbing the child of such potentials.---thus  Criminals.

Unfortunately, we've been told for years that until that bundle of cells makes the trip down the birth canal, it's not a human, and has no rights. Therefore, under the current climate, modifying it be born deaf is apparently not illegal or immoral. How can it be immoral to modify a bundle of cells which is a part of your own body and law has said that you can do anything you wish with it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

disabled means "less able" or in the case of blind "not able to see" or deaf "not able to hear".

I disagree that deaf parents have a right to assure that their child is also deaf. I question that such people actually exist as well.

[Plane]

Okay, this is not a spelling error.
A homophone is not the same thing as a homophobe.

I think all can agree that Plane is not a homophone.

Plain

[Plane]

disabled means "less able" or in the case of blind "not able to see" or deaf "not able to hear".

I disagree that deaf parents have a right to assure that their child is also deaf. I question that such people actually exist as well.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7885201&ch=4226714&src=news

[Cynthia]

I read a post where you clearly stated that the ONLY ONE who came close to addressing your "question" was Ami.

You could have posted that definition yourself. I was, in fact, waiting for you to do so
Of course Sirs could have posted the "factual defining dime" anyone could have...Sure, Ami is good at that.. . He tends to focus on facts...Just the facts, mammy.

The thread was getting a bit long winded and you were mincing words, arguing the definition---giving credit to his definition, in the end.
Sirs was pointing out the reality in the society of disabled/disabilities using his own words. I found his "defining words" to be a worthy point in the argument. You weren't satisfied. You beat that horse...on and on.

When others come to 'read the board', as you all volley words and meet minds, YOU, Prince are actually one of those POPPER minds to watch, like a fine dine. You are actually one of the best. If this board were a reality tv program, you would not be eliminated any time soon. ha!
....I think, however, that the argument in this saloon becomes a bit of an overkill when it comes to the tit for tat between the good old boys among us all. 
Ok, I am not criticizing you personally,  Prince, really....I just wonder how many "guest folks" out there refrain from jumping into the "pool-saloon" for fear that they can not compete with Websters dictionary in the end. ha! Ok exaggerating here...but am I?

When members consistently hold center court arguing semantics with a fervor, I wonder if we shouldn't rename the board....."Websters "R We" Beat THAT! ,
You better belly up and be ready to prove your point via the Web.

[Cynthia]

"I see. So you think I should have shut up and been silent, regardless of what I think."


NO, but you have to let it go.

Never be silent. The point will never be won with this threaded misguided fabric machine.

You have a point. Guess what? I actually understand it.

Like my own NCLB thread debate. I KNOW what is wrong, based on what I see on the front lines.

YOU have a point here that actually "means something", but because this board is only going to allow facts brought to us all by....."Websters etc.." then we can't speak to any point we "feel" or own as reality...and frankly, TRUE.

[Cynthia]

Those people are robbing the child of such potentials.---thus  Criminals.

Unfortunately, we've been told for years that until that bundle of cells makes the trip down the birth canal, it's not a human, and has no rights. Therefore, under the current climate, modifying it be born deaf is apparently not illegal or immoral. How can it be immoral to modify a bundle of cells which is a part of your own body and law has said that you can do anything you wish with it?

Thus the mix of politics and faith. Immoral/? What does that mean in this discussion?

Law? what does that mean in this discussion?


Both are defined by mortals.

[Cynthia]

I agree. But the deaf couple is not in disagreement about the meaning of "disability". They are in disagreement that deafness is a disability.

So? If a color blind person says that he or she does not have to stop for a red light, because FOR THEM it's not red, is that a valid choice?

Regardless of whether or not the parents think they are disabled, they do not, in fact, have use of a facility that other humans do. They are, by definition, disabled. They might refuse to accept aid for the disabled, and they might refuse to be treated as disabled, but since they cannot hear, they do have a disability. And a potentially life threatening one at that.

Seems to me that the more life threatening disability is the color blind person. Running through a colorless light is deadly.

Not hearing the car's blasting boombox next door is not as risky.

Disabilities....lack of. . less likely to function...less than?  Sure, disabilites can be defined as "relative", in the end.

My god, I have a disability in that I can't wear Victoria Secret's intimate apparel like I once did.
Should I sue Vickie's Secret? Ok that was a Joke....
You know me.....d'oh.

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Color blind people really do not have trouble with traffic lights.

The lights are always in the same POSITIONS.

[Amianthus]

Not hearing the car's blasting boombox next door is not as risky.

Being deaf can lead to more life threatening situations than just not being able to hear your neighbor's boombox.

What about that deaf family that cannot hear the tornado horns in the middle of the night, sleeping on blissfully until their house is destroyed and they are killed?

[Amianthus]

Color blind people really do not have trouble with traffic lights.

The lights are always in the same POSITIONS.

Would you like a photo of some that are NOT?

Besides, that wasn't my point, and you (should) know it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Would you like a photo of some that are NOT?

I have seen several in Mexico, perhaps 20 years ago.
Do you actually keep a log of nonstandard traffic lights?
-----------------------------------------------------

Besides, that wasn't my point, and you (should) know it.

It was just a comment.

And it is true that the position of red, yellow and green lights is standardized nearly everywhere.