Maybe I Should Move to California

[Rich]

>>Why, because you say so.(?)<<

So I presume you prefer the term "handicapable"?

Actually, everybody says so. Deafness is a handicap. Blindness is a handicap. However, a handicap doesn't mean you are any less human or less able.

[sirs]

You see Prince, while i admire your libertarian approach to this debate, and how noble it is for a person with a hearing disability not wanting to aknowledge it as such, I'm still on the side of medicine.  Your arguement of "I say so" is about as valid as telling a Dr that their dx of someone's brain cancer is simply their "say so", or that an Audiologist's conclusions of hearing loss is simply their "say so".  My "say so" is simply consistent with medicine and function.  A person who has severely worse hearing has a disability, when compared to those who don't.  That's why they have special schools, classes where families can learn to sign, all kinds of special...fill in the blank.  They're there to help said person with their disability so they can better function, on as equal as terms of those with completely functional hearing.  It's still a disability, and while we all can admire those who don't wish to call their disability a disability, and wish not to look for any assistance, it remains egregiously cruel to want that same amount of handicap on a child who has no choice in the matter.  Simple as that

[sirs]

>>Why, because you say so.(?)<<

Actually, everybody says so.  Deafness is a handicap.  Blindness is a handicap.  However, a handicap doesn't mean you are any less human or less able.

Well said, Rich

[Xavier_Onassis]

Actually, everybody says so. Deafness is a handicap. Blindness is a handicap. However, a handicap doesn't mean you are any less human or less able.

==========================================
Not less human, but please, don;t tell us that Stevie Wonder is no less able a driver, please.

[Universe Prince]

I'm still on the side of medicine.

Then let's see some medical argument rather than an unsupported assertion that someone not 100% functioning is disabled.

Your arguement of "I say so" is about as valid as telling a Dr that their dx of someone's brain cancer is simply their "say so", or that an Audiologist's conclusions of hearing loss is simply their "say so".

Not at all. No one is saying deaf people are not deaf. Not even the deaf people. The question is whether being deaf is a disability. You say it is. The deaf couple says it isn't. I ask, why should I believe you? And all you can muster is, basically, because you know it is. That is not good enough.

That's why they have special schools, classes where families can learn to sign, all kinds of special...fill in the blank.  They're there to help said person with their disability so they can better function, on as equal as terms of those with completely functional hearing.

So it's a disability because we treat them as being disabled. That seems somewhat circular.

[sirs]

I doubt anyone's making that claim Xo.     

[Universe Prince]

So I presume you prefer the term "handicapable"?

I don't prefer any term at all.

Actually, everybody says so.

Oh. Well then it must be true. Everybody says so. Except, of course, for the people who don't. Which brings us right back to where we were.

[sirs]

I'm still on the side of medicine.

Then let's see some medical argument rather than an unsupported assertion that someone not 100% functioning is disabled.

Made it already.  As I said, just because you don't like the answer doesn't make the answer any less valid

Your arguement of "I say so" is about as valid as telling a Dr that their dx of someone's brain cancer is simply their "say so", or that an Audiologist's conclusions of hearing loss is simply their "say so".

Not at all. No one is saying deaf people are not deaf. Not even the deaf people. The question is whether being deaf is a disability. You say it is. The deaf couple says it isn't. I ask, why should I believe you? And all you can muster is, basically, because you know it is. That is not good enough.

Sorry if medical science isn't good enough for yas, Prince.  Don't know what to tell you, outside of what's already been said, that those who don't want to acknowledge their disability as a disability can be applauded.  But trying to lay claim that because they don't believe it is for them, so it's ok for a normal child to have their hearing purposely impaired is being severely selfish and cruel

That's why they have special schools, classes where families can learn to sign, all kinds of special...fill in the blank.  They're there to help said person with their disability so they can better function, on as equal as terms of those with completely functional hearing.

So it's a disability because we treat them as being disabled. That seems somewhat circular.

It's that medical science thing, again.  And last time I checked, all those schools & classes were optional.  So, basically your claiming that disabled people treat themselves as being disabled.  Yea, that is circular

[Amianthus]

Then let's see some medical argument rather than an unsupported assertion that someone not 100% functioning is disabled.

Definition of "Disabled" from a medical dictionary:

dis-a-bled
adj.

Impaired, as in physical functioning.

Definition of "Hearing Impaired" from the same dictionary:

hear-ing-im-paired
adj.

   1. Having a diminished or defective sense of hearing, but not deaf; hard of hearing.
   2. Completely incapable of hearing; deaf.

So, according to a medical dictionary, someone who cannot hear is "impaired" or "disabled".

[Universe Prince]

Made it already.

Where?

Sorry if medical science isn't good enough for yas, Prince.

Still waiting for you to provide it.

But trying to lay claim that because they don't believe it is for them,

Not what I said.

And last time I checked, all those schools & classes were optional.  So, basically your claiming that disabled people treat themselves as being disabled.  Yea, that is circular

You made the argument so I'm being circular? Now you're just talking nonsense, Sirs.

[sirs]

Thanks Ami....not that it'll get Prince to look past his already made up mind, but the supporting back up is appreciated

[Universe Prince]

Definition of "Disabled" from a medical dictionary:

Ah. Now see, there is a good start for an argument. So a dictionary says deafness is a disability. The deaf couple says it isn't. So why should the medical dictionary, or the opinion of someone who thinks it is, have more weight than that of the deaf couple. The deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.

[Universe Prince]

Thanks Ami....not that it'll get Prince to look past his already made up mind, but the supporting back up is appreciated

That's just it, Sirs. My mind is not already made up. That your arguments are weak and flimsy does not mean my mind is inflexible.

[sirs]

Definition of "Disabled" from a medical dictionary:

So a dictionary says deafness is a disability. The deaf couple says it isn't. So why should the medical dictionary, or the opinion of someone who thinks it is, have more weight than that of the deaf couple. The deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.

 

Yea, your mind isn't made up........no, not at all

[Universe Prince]

The deaf couple might be wrong, but I suppose I am looking for more than because people say so as a reason.

Yea, your mind isn't made up........no, not at all

Yes, exactly. Again, that your arguments are weak and flimsy does not mean my mind is inflexible. I am acknowledging that I can be persuaded, that the position of the deaf couple might be wrong. What have you said? Have you said your position might be wrong? Have you said anything to indicate you might be persuaded to change your position. Not that I can tell. You won't even give straight answers to straight questions. So for you to criticize me for supposedly having made up my mind is certainly a bit of a double standard.