gurglesletch said:
highwaystar101 said:
gurglesletch said:
highwaystar101 said:
gurglesletch said:
TBH your thread name is misleading. If you are partially blind you can still see but not as well. (quality) |
How so?
Sight is not a binary thing, it's not a case of perfect sight or no sight. My grandmother was registered as blind after an accident, it left her with ~10% of what was her regular sight, if she had a treatment to restore her sight from 10% to 50% then her sight would have been restored.
This man was partially blind, now he's not due to this treatment. His sight has been restored.
Sight is not binary.
|
My point is that he was never blind. His vision was just inhibited. Being blind means you CANNOT see and this man obviously could.
|
Partially blind!! Partially, that's the key word here. Partially. You can be partially blind and have your sight restored. Did you not read what I wrote? Being blind is not a binary thing, as in it can only be one way or the other. Being blind does not mean that you can't see full stop, if you're missing 90% of your vision then you are by definition partially blind.
Partially blind is a perfectly viable term to us. No-one said he was 100% blind, they said he was partially blind.
|
Your lack of common sense is disturbing.
|
I'm sorry, what? My lack of common sense is disturbing? I still don't see how my thread title is misleading. You argued that partially blind means you can see, but not as well. I accept that, we all do, but I don't see how the thread title is misleading in any way because of this.
The thread title is "Stem cell treatment restores sight to partially blind man". The story was about a man who was partially blind and doctors used stem cells to restore his sight (as in he did have good vision, then he lost it, but now doctors have restored it). I honestly don't see how the thread title is misleading in any way.
