Katawa Shoujo Forums

YZQ wrote:Not everyone can accept that state of affairs, and I think scientists have a selfish reason for promoting this particular line: They want to push their knowledge/mastery of the human body to the limit. Reversing deafness/blindness, creating artifical limbs that are as good as natural ones (if not better) all sound to me like projects mad scientists do. But, I'll bet my last dollar and hat that the fame at the end of it all will be enormous.

Wut?

Everyone that uses glasses are disabled. Yes, disabled. I have miopia and wouldnt be able to function in society if I didnt had glasses. Yes, its that bad. Just to read this I would have to be like 15 cm from the screen. ANd there are millions of there with similar problems.

Yet its weird that we dont see ourselves as disabled, because with glasses we are almost normal. Nonetheless, if it wasnt for scientists, our life would be as bad as someone without legs. Maybe worst.

So, a lot of problems that we deal nowadays and consider as disabilities will probabily be reversed in the future and people wont even about it.

I'm perfectly cool with the idea, despite the use of the term "mad scientist". But, folks like Kutagh have expressed reservations.

Warwise wrote:Everyone that uses glasses are disabled.

Not true. My vision without glasses is only slightly worse than with them; I'd be perfectly able to do what I do without them; and there are only a few people I know who truly need glasses for day-to-day life.

Warwise wrote:Everyone that uses glasses are disabled. Yes, disabled. I have miopia and wouldnt be able to function in society if I didnt had glasses. Yes, its that bad. Just to read this I would have to be like 15 cm from the screen. ANd there are millions of there with similar problems.

Yet its weird that we dont see ourselves as disabled, because with glasses we are almost normal. Nonetheless, if it wasnt for scientists, our life would be as bad as someone without legs. Maybe worst.

So, a lot of problems that we deal nowadays and consider as disabilities will probabily be reversed in the future and people wont even about it.

That's an interesting way to look at things. I can technically walk around without glasses, but I can't read anything or tell people apart. Getting around unfamiliar areas would be difficult too, so using that logic there really would be a lot of disabled people if it weren't for glasses.

This is a big issue in countries where there are many people who cannot get glasses to correct their problems with vision. Some charities organise movements to collect glasses which are to be thrown away, and ship them over to these people.

Everyone that uses glasses are disabled. Yes, disabled. I have miopia and wouldnt be able to function in society if I didnt had glasses. Yes, its that bad. Just to read this I would have to be like 15 cm from the screen. ANd there are millions of there with similar problems.

Yet its weird that we dont see ourselves as disabled, because with glasses we are almost normal. Nonetheless, if it wasnt for scientists, our life would be as bad as someone without legs. Maybe worst.

Interesting way of defining things.

On the flipside, the U.S. Censure Bureau's definition of "Difficulty Seeing" was defined as "experiencing blindness or having
difficulty seeing words and letters in ordinary newsprint, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses (if normally worn)."

So while your average Joe wouldn't be considered disabled due to wearing glasses, somebody like Kenji would be.

The Veterans Association considers a medical condition that is defined but doesn't require constant medication or interfere with normal occupational or social situations to be a 0% disability. (Actually they have a much more complicated system, but I'm dumbing it down here.)

YZQ wrote:I'm perfectly cool with the idea, despite the use of the term "mad scientist". But, folks like Kutagh have expressed reservations.

We express reservation mostly about the concept of 'having to be FIXED', which implies there is something seriously wrong with being Deaf. There are a few that are seriously concerned about the effects of a Cochlear Implant on the Deaf Culture and Sign Language, due to less children being taught Sign Language, which I understand, but this is not a significant majority.

A close friend at college has been deaf in one ear since she was about six.

When I was in high school doing co-op (work experience) in the IT department I used to have a regular visitor, a blind girl who had a cool Braille display for her laptop.

Hans PK wrote:

Warwise wrote:Everyone that uses glasses are disabled.

Not true. My vision without glasses is only slightly worse than with them; I'd be perfectly able to do what I do without them; and there are only a few people I know who truly need glasses for day-to-day life.

Can you drive without glasses? Go to class without glasses?

There is a lot of people who use contacts. Ive been going to university for years and I never went there with glasses, so most people dont even know I have bad vision.

Oddball wrote:

Everyone that uses glasses are disabled. Yes, disabled. I have miopia and wouldnt be able to function in society if I didnt had glasses. Yes, its that bad. Just to read this I would have to be like 15 cm from the screen. ANd there are millions of there with similar problems.

Yet its weird that we dont see ourselves as disabled, because with glasses we are almost normal. Nonetheless, if it wasnt for scientists, our life would be as bad as someone without legs. Maybe worst.

Interesting way of defining things.

On the flipside, the U.S. Censure Bureau's definition of "Difficulty Seeing" was defined as "experiencing blindness or having
difficulty seeing words and letters in ordinary newsprint, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses (if normally worn)."

So while your average Joe wouldn't be considered disabled due to wearing glasses, somebody like Kenji would be.

The Veterans Association considers a medical condition that is defined but doesn't require constant medication or interfere with normal occupational or social situations to be a 0% disability. (Actually they have a much more complicated system, but I'm dumbing it down here.)

Yes, I see your point. But that only hapened because we dont see bad eyesight a disability because SCIENCE came up with a way to fix it. So, we arent disabled because SCIENCE enables us to live an almost normal life. BUt without it, a lot of us would be disabled, including me. I wouldnt be able to go to classes, drive, tell people apart, play sports and do a lot of other stuff. I wouldnt even be able to safely cross a street unless I used other senses like hearing.

So, I do hope in the future SCIENCE advances so much that other problems like missing limbs, hearing problems and other kinds of disabilities become as minor issues as eyesight problems. But some people here seem to think that we should stop looking to fix it, and just let people be as they are right now. I dont agree with it. It that was true I would be living a much worst life than Im living right now, just because I can aford a good pair of glasses and contacts.

Kutagh wrote:

YZQ wrote:I'm perfectly cool with the idea, despite the use of the term "mad scientist". But, folks like Kutagh have expressed reservations.

We express reservation mostly about the concept of 'having to be FIXED', which implies there is something seriously wrong with being Deaf. There are a few that are seriously concerned about the effects of a Cochlear Implant on the Deaf Culture and Sign Language, due to less children being taught Sign Language, which I understand, but this is not a significant majority.

This "deaf culture" is bullshit. Yes, its nice that people with similar problems can understand each other and have something in common, but believing that is better than be able to hear.

I remember a story about a deaf couple that wanted their children to be deaf so they could understand each other. That is stupid.

Warwise wrote:Can you drive without glasses? Go to class without glasses?

Yes, though I'm not entirely sure whether driving without them is legal, but it would certainly be only negligibly harder.

Back on-topic: Actually, if parents count, then yes. My mother's basically deaf in one ear and has tinnitus in both.

Warwise wrote:Yes, its nice that people with similar problems can understand each other and have something in common, but believing that is better than be able to hear.

Consider everything you've heard in life. Now consider just how much of it has been inane, distracting bullshit.

Hearing is overrated. If someone believes their deafness a valuable trait, then it is one.

Hans PK wrote: Actually, if parents count, then yes. My mother's basically deaf in one ear and has tinnitus in both.

I've got tinnitus, as well. Didn't know what it was for the first thirteen years of my life, I thought it was just something everyone had to deal with. My case might not be as severe as your mother's, though.

Xanatos wrote:

Warwise wrote:-unnecessary snip-

Consider everything you've heard in life. Now consider just how much of it has been inane, distracting bullshit.

Hearing is overrated. If someone believes their deafness a valuable trait, then it is one.

Deaf culture is something for people to be proud of. At least, it's more likely within deaf families/groups/individuals.

Might I ask, were you watching Sound and Fury, or perhaps Sound And Fury: Six Years Later?

Warwise, think about how the parents of the child have grown-up, have lived. Being deaf and communicating, surviving, to an extent, in the 'hearing world' is something they've had to do for years. They've got their own language, they've found large masses of similar people that can relate to them.

One perspective is that they want the best for their child. The couple knows that their child could have more life opportunities in the future, if he/she could hear. On the other hand, they might believe they won't be able to be as providing as they might want to be, as they're used to living in a soundless world. They go so far as to seek counseling, the advice of many other deaf/hearing people, and even a deaf family that had cochlear implants given to a child. Sound could be the controversial topic for deaf culture, as religion is for our society.

Now, I can hardly say that hearing is better than being deaf. I live in a hearing world, and I've never spent a day without a sense of sound. For a deaf person, the same case might apply, but if one were to rank the soundless culture higher than my own, then I'd respect their opinion as long as they'd respect mine. After all, what can we do to each other if we disagree?

Umber wrote:Might I ask, were you watching Sound and Fury, or perhaps Sound And Fury: Six Years Later?

Never heard of it.

I actually have experienced deafness (via deliberate blocking out of sound - the device I cobbled together to manage it was a bitch to wear) and it wasn't so bad. Granted, in my current day-to-day, I don't communicate verbally so much anyway. I'll very likely retry it once I get to a point where it would actually affect things.