How 19-year-old activist Zack Kopplin is making life hell for Louisiana creationists

[Blackking]

Bruh, he's not attacking vouchers as a whole, he's attacking the constitutionality of vouchers with respect to religious schools with inaccurate and religious curriculums.

Can we agree that parents should have more choice in the education their children receives?

Our education system has failed us horribly as a people. Of course there will be fridge groups when dealing with any program, but that is their choice. No one is forcing these parents to send their children to boogymaan and monster schools. Vouchers offer an alternative. I don't send my children to normal schools. I find to one that will prepare them for college from 1st grade. I don't even teach them anything about Islam or religion. I teach them whats important, but if I wanted to send them, on a voucher, to a Islamic school that would be my choice.

Atheist love to pretend that the public education system is religious and anti science. This is far from the truth. The system is lacking in the quality of science taught, but that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with secular and government bureaucracies.

ntm, most voucher schools are better with science and technology.

 

[theworldismine13]

A lot of rambling in this post, but the basic question is this: where in the article does it say he is attacking vouchers and wants to do away with them? We had this same issue in the other thread. You appear to be attacking a strawman.

It says right in the story that he is attacking vouchers

He also has his eyes set on vouchers. After an Alternet story came out about a school in the Louisiana voucher program teaching that the Loch Ness Monster

It's not a strawman, and liberals going after vouchers I find to be very disgusting, and its an examplenwere leftists ideology and black interests diverge

if dude has a problem with creationism he should take it up with the school board and not attack incidental voucher programs

 

[The Real]

It says right in the story that he is attacking vouchers

It says he's targeting vouchers. But for what? The article makes it pretty clear:

1. Increased transparency so taxpayers know exactly where their money is going.

2. To argue that vouchers being used for schools with anti-scientific, religious curriculums is unconstitutional.

Which of these constitutes an attack on vouchers themselves?

It's not a strawman, and liberals going after vouchers I find to be very disgusting, and its an examplenwere leftists ideology and black interests diverge

if dude has a problem with creationism he should take it up with the school board and not attack incidental voucher programs

It is a strawman. See above. You are seeing what you want to see and then having a kneejerk reaction to it.

 

[Brown_Pride]

It is a strawman. See above. You are seeing what you want to see and then having a kneejerk reaction to it.

It's gotten worse since be became a grand wizard in the new black panther movement.

Twimmy is almost slaimon status in regards to his pro black agenda.

 

[Mowgli]

in all fairness, if you accuse this kid of causing hurricane katrina then you absolutley need a hole in the head

So you call for the death of people whos theories you dont agree with. I think you're the person whos a detriment to society.

 

[theworldismine13]

It says he's targeting vouchers. But for what? The article makes it pretty clear:

1. Increased transparency so taxpayers know exactly where their money is going.

2. To argue that vouchers being used for schools with anti-scientific, religious curriculums is unconstitutional.

Which of these constitutes an attack on vouchers themselves?



It is a strawman. See above. You are seeing what you want to see and then having a kneejerk reaction to it.

so let me get this straight your argument is based on the idea that "targeting" vouchers is completely separate from "attacking" vouchers?

really?

 

[theworldismine13]

It's gotten worse since be became a grand wizard in the new black panther movement.

Twimmy is almost slaimon status in regards to his pro black agenda.

for the record, there is nothing ive said in this thread or any thread that i havent said before, ive been saying the same thing for years about vouchers

in fact part of the reason why i got into it with KOSH back in was on this issue because i was saying milton friedman had some good ideas, like vouchers that would behoove black people to adopt

so there is nothing new

 

[The Real]

so let me get this straight your argument is based on the idea that "targeting" vouchers is completely separate from "attacking" vouchers?

really?

Yes. Your argument is that vouchers do good things and so they should be kept. He's not contesting that. What he's asking for is reform that does not eliminate vouchers. It even says so in the article. It's really not that subtle a distinction... I'm not sure why you're insist on this point. There's really no clash here.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

I don't get it. Evolutionists say "don't teach creationism because I don't believe it" but then they want evolution to be taught with total disregard for people who don't believe in that.

I know HL is like 85% atheist but in reality you're the minority.

 

[Magnus Warhol]

I said it before and i will say it again - Religion is the Root of all Evil.

 

[the cac mamba]

So you call for the death of people whos theories you dont agree with. I think you're the person whos a detriment to society.

mowgli youre defending the viewpoint that this kid caused hurricane katrina. there's trolling, and then theres being an absolute retard

 

[theworldismine13]

Yes. Your argument is that vouchers do good things and so they should be kept. He's not contesting that. What he's asking for is reform that does not eliminate vouchers. It even says so in the article. It's really not that subtle a distinction... I'm not sure why you're insist on this point. There's really no clash here.

there is no reason to think he isnt contesting the idea of vouchers, nowhere in the articles is there a distinction or concession made that vouchers are a good thing, it makes no reference to vouchers except to bring up what they think are negative points about it

the article makes no such distinction and regardless saying that vouchers are unconstitutional is an attack on vouchers, the fact that you personally agree with it or you think that its perfectly reasonable doesnt make it NOT an attack

 

[Gus Money]

I don't get it. Evolutionists say "don't teach creationism because I don't believe it" but then they want evolution to be taught with total disregard for people who don't believe in that.

I know HL is like 85% atheist but in reality you're the minority.

The difference is that evolution is based on actual science and research while creationism holds no scientific weight. Evolution isn't automatically tied to atheism, meaning the fact that atheists are a small part of the population has nothing to do with this.

Plus, very few credible scientists (if any at all) doubt the theory of evolution, making them a vast minority.

 

[The Real]

there is no reason to think he isnt contesting the idea of vouchers, nowhere in the articles is there a distinction or concession made that vouchers are a good thing, it makes no reference to vouchers except to bring up what they think are negative points about it

The distinction is made, and can be found right in this passage:

"These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private," he says. "But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules." Kopplin is hoping for more transparency in these programs so the public can see what is being taught with taxpayers' money.

Saying that voucher schools need to be accountable to the public by following different parameters means exactly what it says, and doesn't even remotely imply getting rid of vouchers.

the article makes no such distinction and regardless saying that vouchers are unconstitutional is an attack on vouchers, the fact that you personally agree with it or you think that its perfectly reasonable doesnt make it NOT an attack

He didn't say vouchers were unconstitutional. His argument is that the use of taxpayer money in the form of vouchers to fund inaccurate religious curriculums was unconstitutional. Again, we've been through this before in that other thread. This is an entirely separate discussion from whether vouchers themselves are good or bad.

 

[Blackking]

The difference is that evolution is based on actual science and research. Plus, evolution isn't automatically tied to atheism, meaning the fact that atheists are a small part of the population has nothing to do with this.

... Most people wouldn't say anything about teaching the thousands of scientific topics in schools and not teaching creationism. Most people believe everything that is proven, such as natural selection, adaptions, genetic drift, etc. Out all the sciences, Biology is most people's favorite class to take. However, it's the sh1t that is not proven. You really can't teach common decent, species becoming completely different animals overtime, say that complex life stems from inanimate matter, etc. .. and tell people on voucher programs, private schools, and people who voted for it- that they can't teach creationism.

Personally I believe that anything religious or spiritual should be left out of school.

Doesn't matter anyway, evolution is taught in full in most schools in America, especially higher education. Most people are religious and religious people write papers on evolution and pass biology class, because most scientific topics aren't in conflict with religious teachings.