Posted on 10/30/2012 4:03:12 AM PDT by rhema
I’m not talking my graduates here. I’m talking the staff they hire. I’m also not talking people who went deaf over time, but those who were born that way. There is a drastic difference between the two in my experience. The born deaf are those I’m citing and I’ve heard others with even more interaction than me echo the opinion.
I would assume that as you went deaf over time, you were educated in the normal system.
True enough, but the popularity of said arguments means that you need an effective counter. “Grow Up” isn’t going to get a lot of traction. Explaining that the quest for fairness leads to even more unfairness is what you need to do.
I had occasion to experience this insularity early upon losing my hearing. I visited a support group for the deaf without knowing ASL and felt very left out. Nobody really talked to me. If what you say is correct, maybe they were unable to do so.
Anyway, with medical advances these days, the “deaf community” is an ever-shrinking group.
Where do you draw the line?
I think people should be obliged to keep their sexual habits secret and none of it would really matter politically or legally.
Two men staying together in the same hotel room? Pass a law against it!!! Oops, now my brother and I have to rent different rooms when traveling together?
A man and woman living together unmarried? Pass a law against it!!! Oops, now a brother and sister cannot live under the same roof.
I never said a law.
How we just shun people as a society and change our culture for the better?
The fact that you think this is about what 2 adults do behind closed doors shows you are way off base.
This is about what happens in schools, in the streets (Folsom Street Festival?), in peoples faces, agencies that want to punish people for not approving their lifestyle, trying to make others act as if its normal.
Those things are not okay.
You have no right to force acceptance of your unnatural behavior.
I believe I read that many deaf advocates oppose the hearing restoration technologies because they believe it will lead to the shrinking of their community.
That’s pretty scary really.
I would say I was pretty clear about my line- private property and private association. I don’t see it being any more moral to force people to associate than to force them not to associate.
Would I like all men to be angels? Yes, it would be nice. we don’t live in such a world however, and giving the government power to ignore rights for whatever the cause isn’t a really good idea. The one’s running the government aren’t angels either.
So then it would be OK to make Frederick Douglass ride in the baggage car rather than ‘forcing’ the people in the whites only train cars to associated with him?
Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.
Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.
Sorry, but I disagree, and I don’t think “grow up” is the core message of what I wrote. And I think it is a mistake to call those fake arguments “popular” and give in on that front, just as I don’t give in to all the people on FR who didn’t learn - or forgot - grammar, and use apostrophes as plurals. Language means something, it is the source of reason in our discourse, and when language becomes corrupted, discourse is damaged and reason is turned upside down.
The Left has hijacked language, ala Humpty Dumpty, using subjective words to mean what they want them to mean. The real issue is not the specific argument - “is X ‘fair’” or “gay marriage” serious as that may be - the bigger issue is the assault on objective discourse and on reason itself. This is the underlying flaw, and I think it is effective to counter - “Who gets to define ‘fairness’?”, or “By what authority does your definition of fairness prevail, and not someone else’s?” Those are devastating questions, because they cannot be answered by the hijackers. I also like saying, “you have hijacked language to use words as a weapon to get your own way - waht does ‘fairness’ mean?”
Again, they can’t answer, because the dialogue moving foward depends on all parties colluding in the idea that “fairness” or what ever other value word is being used - means what they want it to mean in that context.
Is it OK to force the Boy Scouts to have gay scoutmasters?
Perhaps those arguments might work. I may well try them in the future. however I think logical judo of turning their fairness on its head works better.
The Boy Scouts are a private club and have a right to determine membership. They are not offering something for sale to the public, or determining that they can only offer a product or service to select members of the public, they are a club for private association.
So would it be OK under your philosophy for the train company to make Frederick Douglass ride in the baggage car rather than ‘forcing’ the people in the whites only train cars to associated with him?
Now there are really two different issues here.
A) It is good for the company to do such a thing, and would I offer them my business if they did so- no.
B) Do I think it should be within their legal rights to do so- yes. It’s their business, their property and hence I believe it should be their decision.
Don’t confuse my personal philosophy of right and wrong with what I think the government should be playing with.
If the rail line declares themselves to be a ‘private rail line’ then how are they any different from the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts will take anyone who wants to join (within reason). A business is no more or less of a private association.
Or should I ask, so you assume companies don’t have rights? Does the freedom of association dissolve in the case of a corporation?
OK, since we’re in the realm of companies offering services to the public and what they are allowed to do. Say I’m Catholic and I own an event hall. Do I have to host a gay wedding reception against my will?
So in your world it would be OK for a train company to force a black man to ride in the baggage car.
A train company is organized to provide a service for a fee and make a profit; not to promote an ideology or to form an ideologically aligned association of people.
Offering one form of service to people and an inferior service to other people (paying full fair and then having to ride in the baggage car), or denying them service, is not currently legal in these United States.
You seem to think this type of thing should be legal.
I disagree.
So you think that the Catholic should have to rent his hall to the gay wedding then?
You seem to have missed that question.
You also have distorted my response. I thought it was clear enough. I said it should be legal. I didn’t say it would be good. And you have decided how a private train company should be organized. If someone was dumb enough to run “Racist Rail Lines”, it should be his option. He would lose money hand over fist and well he should, but it should be his opportunity to be stupid and wrong.
Though you are correct, I do think such a thing should be legal as private citizens and corporations should have the ability to decide how to use their property. You are stepping over a line if you decide otherwise for whatever cause no matter how good. If the government can tell you how to use your property (beyond not using it to harm others), it’s really not yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.