Category: Let's talk
I was involved in a discussion that I'M gonna start HERE--I JUST SO HAPPENED to have wandered into a particular phone chat room, while the issue of "LANGUAGE-ADJUSTMENT" between BLIND and SIGHT was going on, and it was UNANNIMOUSLY AGREED that the phrases/words "VISUAL IMPAIRMENT/VISUALLY IMPAIRED," "DISABILITY/DISABLED," "HANDICAPABLE/HANDICAP/HANDICAPPED," "CHALLENGED," "CONDITION," "SITUATION," and/or "INFIRMITY (just to name THAT many)," are to be TOTALLY EXPOSED for what they REALLY ARE--ABSOLUTE INACCURACIES," as far as ANY description of the "AREA of VISUALITY" is concerned, and that the VERY ABSOLUTE-AND-ONLY-TRUTH-THAT'S-TRUE BE KNOWN that ALL of the COMPLETE-WHOLE VISUAL AREA, from TOTAL BLINDNESS to 20-20-SIGHT, FULLY RECOGNIZED as "VISION-ALTERNATES," as being the ONE-AND-ONLY NEVER-DISPROOVED ACCURACY, HAS ALWAYS BEEN, IS ALWAYS, STILL, and WILL ALWAYS, ETERNALLY, be the VERY ONE to DO it, JUST AS it's ALWAYS HAS, and ALWAYS WILL. OBVIOUSLY, ALL ARE ONE, just as ONE IS ALL. DENIAL of this ABSOLUTE FACT, ONLY PROOVES the UNDENIABLE VULNERABILITY of the VERY ONE/ONES, DOING the DENYING.
I DEFINITELY DON'T wanna forget to MENTION that people of ALL-ABOVE-MENTIONED-VISION-ALTERNATES participated in the discussion.
I usually try to stay away from political correctness preferring the bluntness of honesty. But just as in the case of Native Americans, I think visual-impaired is one of those rare exceptions to the rule. While it is true that I am blind because I have absolutely no sight, another person might have vision but less than most people and as most of us know, that can range from seeing light and shaddows to seeing everything just not well enough to drive. So to call them visually-impaired is alot more accurate. And what about those who can drive in the day but not at night? They're certainly not blind.
I agree with poster three. Being blind is having no vision whatsoever, whereas being visually impaired is having vision, but your vision is distorted. So if you have any vision at all, you're visually impaired. But if you have very little vision and preferred to say you are blind, then I believe that is acceptible. So in this case, calling someone visually impaired is not incorrect. There vision is not completely diminished or gone, nor is it perfect or anywhere near being so. So if you're vision is distorted, obstructed, or limited somehow, then it is impaired, just as a person who's had two or three glasses of alcohol ability to drive is impaired.
HOWEVER, an IMPAIRMENT of ANY KIND, MEANS that it's a PROBLEM, whether it's CORRECTABLE, PERHAPS if CAUGHT in time, or it's NOT. BLINDNESS, just as ALL OTHER "VISION-ALTERNATES" do NOT fall under this category--I'm OFF and RUNNING, but I WILL be back LATER to DEFINITELY EXPOUND FURTHER.
Like I SAID, I'm back to FURTHER EXPOUND on this matter--JUST AS IT'S OBVIOUS that when you're TOTALLY BLIND, you have NO SIGHT (BY THE WAY, speaking of "POLITICAL, or ANY OTHERWISE CORRECTNESS," to call SIGHT "VISION" is TOTALLY INCORRECT; SIGHT is a "VISION-ALTERNATE."), it's ALSO JUST AS OBVIOUS, that when you're 20-20-SIGHTED, you have NO BLINDNESS. What's ALSO incorrect is the idea that ANY ONE VISION-ALTERNATE DISTORTS ANOTHER. As a 20-20-SIGHTED, or ANY OTHER vision-alternate, to have changed to ANYWHERE ELSE in the VISUAL AREA, ONLY MEANS that you've "VISUALLY TRANSITIONED." You don't "LOSE" one to the other. Of COURSE, it's DEFINITELY JUST AS WRONG to say that ONE "ALTERNATE" CHALLENGES ANOTHER, when ALL are EQUALLY INTERFUNCTIONAL with each other. NATURALLY, that NEVER MEANS that EITHER/ALL FUNCTION as the EXACT SAME THING, in the EXACT SAME WAY, at the EXACT SAME TIME AS ANOTHER, to mean that ALL INTERFUNCTION, EQUALLY, EITHER, in case if anyone MIGHT'VE been prepared to go off into THAT ridiculous tangent.
Having vision outside of 20-20 vision isn't what makes a person visually impaired. I think that a person should be classified as visually impaired if they have trouble seeing a certain distance in front of them, have trouble seeing colors or certain colors, objects, or identifying shapes. The deal with colors goes with the exception that men have one less rod in their retinas.
Also, a person should be classified as visually impaired if their eyes have trouble with light e.g., adapting or adjusting to it, and this therefore affects the way they view objects.
raven, what this dude is objecting to I think is the term impairment. in among his verbiage I believe he was saying that if someone who can not see as well as 20-20 is impaired we are saying they are bad. So, I guess if you have a visual variation or a sight simetric syndrome that is ok. Why is he worrying about adjectives when he should be addressing attitudes?
Thanks for explaining that Holly. His writing is sometimes a bit difficult to understand.
And I agree with you that it's attitudes that should be concerned about. I'd be worried about adjectives if people were calling us visually damaged, but that's not the case.
His writing is hard to understand? Try him just in general being hard to understand. He has some fucked up views about things sometimes.
FIRST, if you were TOTALLY ATTENTITIVE to what I posted, REGARDLESS of its PERHAPS-COMPLICATED WORDING, you would've DEFINITELY REALIZED that it's JUST AS SIMPLY EXPLAINED as it can POSSIBLY BE--OBVIOUSLY, I NEVER IMPLIED that the term "VISUALLY-IMPAIRED" was either GOOD OR BAD--I ONLY SAID that it was INCORRECT. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING'S INCORRECT DOES NOT MEAN, in ANY FORM, FASHION, OR OTHERWISE, that ANY OFFENSE had been COMMITTED.
NOW, as far as "ADJECTIVES" and "ATTITUDES," OF COURSE, this ALL HAS TO DO with "INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION," if you will; ALL INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION MUST BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, ALL ACROSS THE BOARD, in order to avoid ANY MISCOMUNICATION, of ANY KIND. When "ADJECTIVES" are DISPLACED, INFORMATION is DISTORTED; when INFORMATION is DISTORTED, ANY/ALL COMMUNICATION is DISRUPTED; when COMMUNICATION is DISRUPTED, CONFLICT is CREATED; when CONFLICT is CREATED, SUCH COULD, if not stopped IN TIME, lead to FURTHER CHAOS.
SECOND, "ADJECTIVES" and "ATTITUDES" are TOTALLY EQUAL ESSENTIALS, so THEREFORE, NEITHER should be ANY MORE-OR-LESS FOCUSSED ON, THAN THE OTHER. NOT ONLY are BOTH EQUAL ESSENTIALS of each other, BOTH are INTERDEPENDENT of each other, as WELL; NEITHER can EVER BE WITHOUT THE OTHER, in order to be effective.
No... lets get this straight...
Impaired: weaken or damage
Well, if you have a problem with your vision and is anywhere under 20-20 isn't it naturally true that your eye-sight is weakened, so therefore you can not see at a 20-20 vision? What's the problem with it. It's truth, and you can't deny it.
And what does the title have anything to do with the topic? Why does it mention spades? Hahaha!
Okay. Well, if visually impaired is incorrect, then what should the term be replaced with?
I do agree that attitudes and adjectives are somewhat interdependent. But the adjectives we are discussing are not equally essential to attitudes because they are not meant to describe the attitudes, but what the attitudes are stemmed from or directed toward.
The title of this thread has a metaphorical meaning. It means that don't call it the way you see it, but call it what it is.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
IN GENERAL, can you define ANY "TRANSITION" as ANY "IMPAIRMENT" of the PREVIOUS STATUS, SUBSTANTIALLY, when NO "IMPAIRMENT" is EVER to be found, EVEN IF THOROUGHLY SEARCHED FOR, OVER and OVER, ENDLESSLY?
the only thing I'm searching over and over endlessly for is the meaning hidden in what this dude is saying. His maundering and wandering gives me a huge headache.
He needs my husband's form of editing. When we first were married I loved the sound of my voice as expressed through the written word. Jim'd go through anything I was going to send out and whack out every other word. Then he'd say "hon, that's the right length." No one needs the extra adjectives and obfuscation. Just say what you gotta say and shut the he** up." After the crying and whining and stamping on my part had stopped, i usually got the point. Bud, We only have so many breaths on this earth. Cut your stuff in half please.
As I've ALWAYS TOLD YOU "EDIT FREAK/FREAKS," for lack of ANY BETTER/WORSE LABEL: THIS is MY POST, and I run it MY WAY, and MY WAY, ONLY. If YOU can't "ROLL WITH IT," SOMEONE ELSE/OTHERS WILL. GET OVER YOURSELF/SELVES.
I forgot to add THIS in the above: it JUST MIGHT BE that it's not that you CAN'T, but that YOU DON'T WANT TO--at ANY rate, AGAIN: GET OVER YOURSELF/SELVES!
An idiot is an idiot, and no other, than an idiot.
WELL, ONLY YOU would know THAT--THAT was the BEST DESCRIPTION of YOURSELF, FAR-ABOVE-AND-BEYOND anyone ELSE'S SELF-DESCRIPTION that I'VE ever heard! THAT was EXCELLENT!
And by his words, his logic, his grammar, his actions and, last but not least, his excessive use of capslock shall he be known. Call it differently smart.
ABSOLUTELY NO TRUER WORDS, EVEN BY YOU, could EVER be spoken of YOURSELF, than ANYONE should/would EVER care to know.