Lincolnite

God that is equally depressing and humorous (Eschliman and Workman’s attitudes that is).

One note - When you state: <i>Why it

Wow.  This makes me embarrassed to be a resident of Lincoln/Lancaster County.  How awful.

[Moved comment from incorrect post. -Mr. Wilson]

The reasons that Echliman and Workman gave are pretty laughable.  You can only assume they are trying to reach their base who they perceive to think along the lines of their justification for the vote against.  And maybe they have reached them, but who knows.

Having said that, I’m not a big fan of slicing people up into different groups and giving funding based on membership in those groups.  If they approve funding for the prevention of suicide among gay adolescents, aren’t the heterosexuals being discriminated against?  Doesn’t anyone care about the lives of heterosexuals?  Think about what would happen if a grant proposal for the prevention of suicide among heterosexual teens came to a vote.  Who would be vocal then?  It’s the same situation as if someone wanted to start an all-white school.  All-black schools are acceptable, but are all-white schools?  What’s the difference?  <—[rhetorical question]

I agree with Dave K on the discomfort with grouping people, but operating on the assumption that the people creating this program aren’t hoping straight kids kill themselves more, I’m willing to assume that maybe the money is to create programming specifically targeted to whatever unique societal pressures gay/lesbian kids go through that straight kids don’t. Not that their lives are more valuable, but that anti-suicide tactics create specific needs and challenges that general approaches don’t cover.

Dave K

I think you missed the part about the rhetorical question.  😉

I know they’re different issues and different circumstances.  My point is more in the public perception and circumstances involved in creating special groups that it seems everyone but straight white males can be members of, and giving special benefits and priviledges to those people.  I actually have no problem with this—if people want to have all-whatever whatevers, then they should be free and feel free to do so.  But I don’t want to hear anyone complain when someone starts a school or club that only rich, straight white males can be members of (which people complain about a lot).

Going back to the gay suicide funding issue: sure, gay adolescents face different pressures.  So do fat kids,  skinny kids, ugly kids, pretty kids.  In fact, there isn’t a single kid at your nearest high school that you could say isn’t facing their own kind of pressure.  Should each kid, and each classification of kid, have special funding in order to try to prevent their suicide?  I would say no.

Should each kid, and each classification of kid, have special funding in order to try to prevent their suicide?  I would say no.

Why not? Doesn’t it make sense to fund projects specific to each subgroup’s needs? After all, fat kid suicide prevention will look much different than gay kid suicide prevention. You don’t take the same medication for every ache and illness, do you? So why would you try to solve different problems with the same remedy? Making the argument that suicide is suicide is equally silly as saying that cancer is cancer.

Why not?  Because there would be no end to the funding.  First of all, it would take forever, if it’s even possible, to cover all classifications of adolescent kids.  Second, what happens when you have overlap?  Does a fat, gay, ugly kid get three times the attention of a kid who is just simply gay?  To use your example, say you did treat every ache and illness in your body.  You would eventually have medicines competing for attention and eventually would run into dangerous drug interactions.

Now you’re just being obtuse. You imply a slippery slope toward hyperplurality which common sense alone ought to tell you is neither inevitable, likely, nor even necessary. Your hypothetical kid argument is ridiculous because, again, common sense alone should tell you that your proposed solution is foolish and illogical.

And your extension of my analogy? Come on, Dave, don’t play stupid. If you honestly treat your ailments that way…well, I’m impressed you’re still alive. Meanwhile, the rest of us will treat ourselves in ways that make sense: relying on the experiences of others in similar circumstances to provide a general outline for our treatment, while taking into account our own unique conditions and needs.

You asked why each type of kid shouldn’t be directly funded for, and I told you.  If you think that’s a slippery slope, then I’ve successfully illustrated the idiocy of the idea, because that’s exactly what it would be.  Absurdity sometimes needs to be illustrated by absurdity, and it looks like you got the point.

No, I wouldn’t treat all my ailments with a different drug.  My analogy is still valid because that’s exactly what your program to fund all types of kids’ suicide prevention would be doing.  If each type of kid needs a different program, and different funding, then aren’t you treating all of the ailments with a different drug?  Under your solution, a fat gay kid would probably be more likely to commit suicide because he wouldn’t be able to figure out which suicide prevention class to go to, the one for gays or the one for fat kids (that was sarcasm).