zapatos

I disagree. The Israeli's needed to know. It was their people and their operations that were put at risk.

Then perhaps it is premature to suggest that "The only thing of interest about Mars is whether it has fossil life, or frozen remnants of life."

Kiplngram didn't give you the negative rep, I did. And I didn't give it 'simply because I disagree'. I used it because I abhor the disrespectful, smart-ass attitude you often use with people. In this case, starting off your post with "And o golly gee. Another failure at english." That type of response also contributes nothing to the current conversation.

Just a friendly tip for future reference when on this site, if you make the claim then you are expected to do the research.

Again and again. Year after year. One kid after another, this happens. And I see it year after year, again and again. Let's be careful about using Youtube and its appeal to emotion.

Well, that and having an educated work force that allows a country to compete in the world, and ensuring standards, and controlling costs, and a country ensuring the welfare of its citizens, and helping people be self-sufficient so that the government doesn't have to support them their whole lives, and... Of course it is. Just like National Parks, Interstate Highways, the National Transportation Safety Board, the FDA, etc.

Much the same was said when Seward purchased Alaska for the United States from Russia in 1867.

Well, it looks like you are suggesting the scenic route, but I end up in the same place either way. In the US, many 'rich' parents do send their children to public schools, and they do agree to more tax money being spent on public education, especially in primary and secondary education. Rich people (and poor people) tend to congregate by income. Public school funding comes from the school district. If the school districts are rich, then the public schools get a lot of funding. In Catholic schools at least, the public schools lure away the private school teachers, as the public school teachers receive a higher salary. In the US, "private" does not necessarily equate to "rich". My kids went to private school, but the tuition was subsidized by the Church Parish for all, income was taken into account, there were work opportunities for both children and parents to reduce tuition, and in addition, kids could get lunch subsidies. I'd be willing to bet that not one single child at my children's school would be classified as 'elite' under anyone's definition. We did not have nearly the facilities, computers, or extra-curricular activities provided by the public schools. What we did have was a shared vision of values, and we were willing to pay above and beyond what we were already paying to the public school districts, while receiving fewer physical benefits in return. I am a big fan of public education, but one size does not fit all. I get the impression that private/public education in Belgium is not necessarily the same as it is elsewhere. Are you blaming our poor public school scores on private schools? If so, any evidence for that?

Private schools that aren't religious don't do that.

If you believe in proper education, then clearly private schools are the place to send your children. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp Are you suggesting that if I have more money than you, I should not be allowed to buy a better education for my children than you can? An obvious advantage to private school over public school is that you are allowed to teach religion or have a single sex environment if that is what you want for your children. I don't know. Are we also going to ban ultra orthodox Jewish schools?

Interesting. Why shouldn't private schools be able to do as they wish? I agree that Catholic school is pretty mild. I was never asked to read the Bible, and remember fondly the vast quantities of beer consumed at every imaginable school event.

You can stand by it all you want, but you are mistaken about whether or not they had any choice in what to believe, and you are not in a position to know otherwise. Hoping to put the debate on this particular matter to rest, both my sons are atheists, with my blessing.

Completely agree. What is getting my hackles up is the suggestion that religious schooling is nothing more than fairy tales, bullshit, and a sign of poor parenting skills. It is an incredibly biased and shallow view of what my children were taught in Catholic school with regard to service, empathy, integrity, respect, and responsibility, among many other attributes. One of the nice things about being a parent is the role we play in helping our children separate the good from the bad, the truth from the fiction, and helping them to become good human beings. While there is much of religion that I find objectionable and even immoral, I think it is foolish to throw out the baby with the bath water. An open mind includes the ability to recognize the good that can come from religion, as well as the bad.

So according to your logic, as I gave my children no choice, they must be Catholic today. Gee, I wonder if that is true.

Bullshit. That's no different than saying that by sending kids to a secular school you've given them no choice but to be secular. You are giving entirely too much credit to the impact school has on people. How many people on this site went to religious schools but CHOSE not to be religious? No problem, it was probably my fault. After getting three quick responses I guessed that I didn't communicate clearly enough.

I did pay myself. Not all schools are public schools. My society does not purport to be secular. The government and a subset of the society purports to be secular. As I said, I agree that no public funding should be used. What I objected to was the suggestion that religion should not be taught in school regardless of whether or not it was publicly funded. You'll have to remind me where I said there is something wrong with my children learning about other religions, or that it infringed on my rights. What I said infringed on my rights was you trying to keep the teaching of a single religion out of schools if no public funding is used. That is my position too, unless it is a secular view of religions (history, basic tenets, etc.). You know, by starting off your sentence with "I am an atheist so..." you make it sound like you think all atheists, and only atheists, do those things you followed up with. If that is what you think, I can assure you, you are mistaken. You've got balls the size of watermelons to think you have any idea at all whether or not I gave my children any choice. You don't know me or how my children were raised. It probably helps. I think you are getting dangerously close to violating rules regarding the denigration of entire groups. Do you think your attitude about entire groups would fly here if you were talking about, say, historically black universities?

As someone who attended and sent my children to Catholic schools, I couldn't disagree more with your sentiment that the specifics of one religion should not be taught in school. At least in the United States that is my right, and I think it is a mistake for others to believe they are justified in determining how my children learn. I agree that no public funding should be used, but I object to your proposal which is essentially an attempt to suppress certain types of thoughts and beliefs. No good will come from one group trying to control how another group chooses to teach their children about religion. If you feel religion is wrong, then convince them by showing them a better way.

Coincidentally I read an article about Marie Cure this weekend. In addition to what you've already pointed out, I learned that her original notebooks are kept in a lead lined box due to radioactivity. Anyone examining them must wear appropriate safety gear.

I hope you are joking, lest probably upwards of 95% of the computer using population doesn't deserve to finish primary school. Probably 100% of the non-computer using population. One of the nice things about today's computers is that most functions, including backups, can be automated even by neophytes.

Perhaps we should stick to definitions widely accepted and used, otherwise we'll never be able to have a meaningful discussion. Most especially on a science forum.

Isolation Better coaches Natural Resources Religion Access to better makeup and fashionable clothing Technology Steroids High end bicycles

Unfortunately, none of us can determine whether there is a God or not no matter how hard we try or how much we want it. Therefore, I cannot think of a less important question.

It's in the works. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/100-million-plan-will-send-probes-to-the-nearest-star1/

What is it that you think did happen?

Very good argument. +1 Unfortunately our one lousy data point leaves a lot to be desired, but your analysis lets me look at this with a better perspective.