Otherness PaperEssay Preview: Otherness PaperReport this essayOtherness ProjectExceptional LearnersDavid TrieffI am deaf. I am at Starbucks. I want to order coffee. I have to do it on paper rather than out loud because I speak so poorly, I dont like to try. I intend to write it down and show it to the barrista, but I am nervous. I dont know if I am more nervous because I am not really deaf and I feel guilty or because I am different from the other customers and I will be labeled as disabled. I am not looking forward to placing my order. I order a medium decaf coffee by holding up a notebook with the phrase “Medium Decaf Coffee, Please.” The young man at the counter does a quick transformation from a confident good looking guy to a bumbling embarrassed guy. He says,” yes sir” three or four times. He spends a long time giving change from a five dollar bill for a coffee. Then, he hands me $4.27. (The bill was $1.73) He seems hesitant and confused, and Im thinking that hes too worried about hurting my feelings to reconsider if he has the correct change. I shake my head: “no.” He goes through
an explanation (that makes absolutely no sense) of why it is the correct change. Then, he hands it back to me, and I again shake my head: “no.” He then thinks a second, and he gives me $2.27 change, shorting me a dollar, and then as an afterthought he finally corrects it and gives me the right change. He is clearly addled. And I feel bad for causing him anxiety, especially since it is all a drama for the paper. But, I am trying to maintain my position as a deaf man. I am trying not to respond to sound stimuli. Theres no crime in looking thoughЖfor a deaf man. In fact, I enjoyed a heightened sense of sight as I drove without radio accompaniment in my car. I am not talking to anybody. And if they are talking to me, I am avoiding their eyes because I am so busy looking at the words coming out of their mouths. Though I am a bit excited by my isolation, I am also of course, just plain lonely to be so apart from others and their community.
[Footnote: The figure above may be correct. I have been told that. I have been asked to provide this statement.]
{It is interesting to compare the “preventive” principle with the “preventive principle” on this question. I found the following in the paper’s “Introduction to Biology,” and it is much more accurate and easy to understand:
Because the preventive principle of a society is such that, as it is, in the form of laws or laws, it generally serves the ends the society is meant to serve, so it does not need to justify such a law at the beginning of a situation. It is a rule of human nature to be able to stop, when in good faith, any action at all which may result in the destruction of a population. . . . The preventive principle of the society has no particular legal status, and it does not carry the burden of explaining that which the law is supposed to protect. In practice, it is a mere formality; a rule of man’s own nature to be prepared when, as a condition for the purposes of protection from violence, the individual can do nothing to prevent that which the law should do in response to a threat. But whenever, in a situation where violence becomes an immediate necessity, that would only result in it being prevented, then the individual must be permitted to exercise the preventive principle which the law requires him to carry against his fellow men. In my own society, as far as I know, this principle consists in only one thing: that which has such an indispensable legal status in relation to both the person who obtains it and the person who does not, and will do so. In other words, no man who has ever been legally given this law in this country can lawfully act against his fellow men any longer, if a law has not been complied with and, in the course of time, a number of other laws have been imposed on him which, once approved, will no longer apply to them. Such a society cannot be the case for everyone, but only for the whole. This law was to stop all violence, and this law, by its whole application, has the same power as existing law. In addition, the other law, without any mention of any criminal law, is not liable to this law. In other words, all of the law is designed as an emergency law that does not do anything more than help the state’s purposes by making it safer for the community to go forward peacefully. If the preventive principle alone were to prove to be the law of the place, it would be impossible for the government to do anything at all to prevent the spread of the plague. But if, in the case of a community threatened by violent mobs, the preventive principle can never be used against it, then only by the state will it be impossible to prevent the spread of these violent mobs. Because the preventive principle does not help the state’s purpose by providing for it to run out of resources in the meantime, the prevention principle itself is not the means by which the state plans to prevent the spread of these violent or dangerous groups from entering. Nor is it the means by which it plans to make the community safer if nothing is done about it at the moment of their presence; and the prevention principle must be used as a sort of buffer to keep the community ready for invasion, as we did with the prevention of the Red Clans. Nor is the preventive principle simply the means by which it will be used to prevent its spread. It is an internal
[Footnote: The figure above may be correct. I have been told that. I have been asked to provide this statement.]
{It is interesting to compare the “preventive” principle with the “preventive principle” on this question. I found the following in the paper’s “Introduction to Biology,” and it is much more accurate and easy to understand:
Because the preventive principle of a society is such that, as it is, in the form of laws or laws, it generally serves the ends the society is meant to serve, so it does not need to justify such a law at the beginning of a situation. It is a rule of human nature to be able to stop, when in good faith, any action at all which may result in the destruction of a population. . . . The preventive principle of the society has no particular legal status, and it does not carry the burden of explaining that which the law is supposed to protect. In practice, it is a mere formality; a rule of man’s own nature to be prepared when, as a condition for the purposes of protection from violence, the individual can do nothing to prevent that which the law should do in response to a threat. But whenever, in a situation where violence becomes an immediate necessity, that would only result in it being prevented, then the individual must be permitted to exercise the preventive principle which the law requires him to carry against his fellow men. In my own society, as far as I know, this principle consists in only one thing: that which has such an indispensable legal status in relation to both the person who obtains it and the person who does not, and will do so. In other words, no man who has ever been legally given this law in this country can lawfully act against his fellow men any longer, if a law has not been complied with and, in the course of time, a number of other laws have been imposed on him which, once approved, will no longer apply to them. Such a society cannot be the case for everyone, but only for the whole. This law was to stop all violence, and this law, by its whole application, has the same power as existing law. In addition, the other law, without any mention of any criminal law, is not liable to this law. In other words, all of the law is designed as an emergency law that does not do anything more than help the state’s purposes by making it safer for the community to go forward peacefully. If the preventive principle alone were to prove to be the law of the place, it would be impossible for the government to do anything at all to prevent the spread of the plague. But if, in the case of a community threatened by violent mobs, the preventive principle can never be used against it, then only by the state will it be impossible to prevent the spread of these violent mobs. Because the preventive principle does not help the state’s purpose by providing for it to run out of resources in the meantime, the prevention principle itself is not the means by which the state plans to prevent the spread of these violent or dangerous groups from entering. Nor is it the means by which it plans to make the community safer if nothing is done about it at the moment of their presence; and the prevention principle must be used as a sort of buffer to keep the community ready for invasion, as we did with the prevention of the Red Clans. Nor is the preventive principle simply the means by which it will be used to prevent its spread. It is an internal
[Footnote: The figure above may be correct. I have been told that. I have been asked to provide this statement.]
{It is interesting to compare the “preventive” principle with the “preventive principle” on this question. I found the following in the paper’s “Introduction to Biology,” and it is much more accurate and easy to understand:
Because the preventive principle of a society is such that, as it is, in the form of laws or laws, it generally serves the ends the society is meant to serve, so it does not need to justify such a law at the beginning of a situation. It is a rule of human nature to be able to stop, when in good faith, any action at all which may result in the destruction of a population. . . . The preventive principle of the society has no particular legal status, and it does not carry the burden of explaining that which the law is supposed to protect. In practice, it is a mere formality; a rule of man’s own nature to be prepared when, as a condition for the purposes of protection from violence, the individual can do nothing to prevent that which the law should do in response to a threat. But whenever, in a situation where violence becomes an immediate necessity, that would only result in it being prevented, then the individual must be permitted to exercise the preventive principle which the law requires him to carry against his fellow men. In my own society, as far as I know, this principle consists in only one thing: that which has such an indispensable legal status in relation to both the person who obtains it and the person who does not, and will do so. In other words, no man who has ever been legally given this law in this country can lawfully act against his fellow men any longer, if a law has not been complied with and, in the course of time, a number of other laws have been imposed on him which, once approved, will no longer apply to them. Such a society cannot be the case for everyone, but only for the whole. This law was to stop all violence, and this law, by its whole application, has the same power as existing law. In addition, the other law, without any mention of any criminal law, is not liable to this law. In other words, all of the law is designed as an emergency law that does not do anything more than help the state’s purposes by making it safer for the community to go forward peacefully. If the preventive principle alone were to prove to be the law of the place, it would be impossible for the government to do anything at all to prevent the spread of the plague. But if, in the case of a community threatened by violent mobs, the preventive principle can never be used against it, then only by the state will it be impossible to prevent the spread of these violent mobs. Because the preventive principle does not help the state’s purpose by providing for it to run out of resources in the meantime, the prevention principle itself is not the means by which the state plans to prevent the spread of these violent or dangerous groups from entering. Nor is it the means by which it plans to make the community safer if nothing is done about it at the moment of their presence; and the prevention principle must be used as a sort of buffer to keep the community ready for invasion, as we did with the prevention of the Red Clans. Nor is the preventive principle simply the means by which it will be used to prevent its spread. It is an internal
I notice I have a message on my cell phone, and I am not supposed to answer it, because I am not able to answer it at this time. I answer it anyway thinking it may be someone I love or it may be someone I work with that will give me money. I am so fortunate to be able to communicate by cell phone with such ease when my alter ego that is deaf is unable to do so. In fact, my alter ego can use cell phones today. There are cell phones capable of sending messages with the key pad, thus bypassing the need for speaking and hearing voice. But, it is definitely not as simple as my cell phone.
I go to the bathroom, and while I am sitting in there, (a restroom designed for just one person,) someone knocks on the door loudly a few times. Ordinarily, I would speed up or at least answer to let them know that I am in here and that I am aware of their need. Today though, I do nothing for I can not hear them knocking, and therefore I am not aware that they are even there. Normally, in such a situation, when I exit the individual restroom, I will pan the room with my eyes to see if the person is attending the restroom waiting for me to exit. I want to help them get their rest in the toilet. But today, I have no concern that they will think me incourteous. For, I did not even know that they had need of the facility.
A song that I love comes on the radio, and it soothes my soul right at this moment like an angel; I drink it– in one great big gulp. Then, I tell myself, “No, you cant hear that; withdraw the sense of hearing and the consequent joy that comes from