I see it as three different cases:

1. The health nut who is already healthy but attributes their health to this one weird secret that only a few, special, people know about. Because everyone else isn't as smart as they are.

2. Someone with a bad disease who wants some hope that they'll get better so they'll try anything.

3. Munchausen syndrome

Remember, it isn't "magic" if you say it's "quantum mechanics".

Quantum physics is a branch of physics that understands the interrelationship between matter
and energy. This science offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases, why
acupuncture can offer patients enough pain relief to undergo surgery without anesthesia, why meditation alone
can, in some instances, reduce the size of cancerous tumors.

No it does not.

And as part of the "course goals":

Understand the difference between Newtonian physics and Quantum physics and their corresponding impacts
on biology.

Bullshit.

Intelligently address the concerns of those afraid of alternative medicine or skeptical about its efficacy.

It's called the placebo effect.

A lot of other politicians would call it horse-trading.

Could be. But what it is NOT is hypocrisy since both the initial claim to support/oppose X and the vote to oppose/support X are in the public eye.

Hypocrisy is when a PUBLIC virtue is claimed while practising the associated vice in PRIVATE.

This could be horse trading (regular politics). This could be corruption. This could be a two-faced lying politician.

But it would not be hypocrisy.

Why hasn't this been mod'ed up?

This is my preferred solution. A machine that sits outside the main firewall that just runs browsers for remote connections.

The internal machines stay clean and the external machine(s) get wiped/reloaded on a regular schedule.

Also, everyone logged in gets a daily/weekly report of what sites they've been visiting and when. And a list of people who can request a copy of that list (their boss, their boss' boss, HR, etc). Judge for yourself whether you'd be able to explain your habits to HR should the question ever arise.

You have a rare boss who understands that the most important thing is that workers be able to work without interference from know-it-alls.

Well the question would then be why-is-the-firewall-there-in-the-first-place.

Is it because it was seen as the cost effective solution to workstations being infected by malicious sites/ads/whatever?

Was there a different reason?

Web blockers usually require a subscription fee. Why pay the fee and then let users bypass it?

Wouldn't you want to be notified if a work-related site suddenly got blocked?

Nicely phrased.

How about a different scenario?

Meet Billy. Billy wants to be a programmer. Billy has a high school diploma. Billy has no college degree. Billy has no certifications. Billy has no professional experience.

What advice would you give Billy to get him his first programming job?

However to filter out on the fact they don't have a certificate (or degree) means to lose out on some of the better programmers.

Any time you use a filter you run the risk of missing a better candidate.

Certificates are an easy filter because any qualified candidate can get them with minimal time/expense.

Are you going to refuse to send in a resume for your dream job just because they require a certain certification to be considered? Or are you going to go to the testing facility and get that certification?

Not just resume. I talk to them. Ask them questions. Usually, I know if I'll hire them within ten minutes.

That doesn't sound like it scales very well.

The last time I had to deal with resumes I had hundreds. And that was from people in Seattle/Tacoma.

Calling each of them would have taken weeks. Or months if there were any complications at work.

At one level, a diploma is no more than a very expensive certification.

My advice has been to get the cheapest and fastest degree you can (from a correctly accredited school). It doesn't matter what the degree is in. Once you've cleared that hurdle you can look at advanced degrees in subjects that may be more work-focused for you.

You can spend $15K on a degree. You can spend $150K on a degree. Your pedigree will only matter in certain firms or with certain people.

The problem is how to judge expertise on a resume.

So certifications get you past the HR filter.

Only then do you get to talk to someone who (in theory) knows programming/whatever enough to evaluate your actual expertise.

So, what is it worth to get past that first hurdle?

So I sold my slave to my buddy in the 6th year.

And he sold me his slave.

You say "loophole" while I say "cheap labour".

My argument would be inheritance. A family could bypass all the legalities of inheritance simply by "marrying" each other.

Which was a problem whether you allowed Mom to marry her sons or whether you allow Dad to marry his sons.

And then divorce them and splitting the assets 50/50.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

When i refer to states rights, I mean the PEOPLE of the state deciding what is a deemed "a right".

Nope. Still wrong. If something is a "right" then how can a state government (or a city government) declare that it is NOT a right?

Even if the majority in that state/city says so?

Your Rights are not subject to majority approval.

As I have been trying to say though, in my first post, marriage was never a right (until SCOTUS declared it to be) it was always a PRIVILEGE granted to by the states (the status constituents who are represented by their local representatives).

Again, marriage existed BEFORE any of the states here existed. There is no "PRIVILEGE granted".

If the government cannot grant a citizen a right then how come they JUST DID??????

The Supreme Court dis NOT just grant "a right" to anyone.

They just made it ILLEGAL to DENY that right.

And Yes, i do believe the state (and moreso the states constituents) should be allowed, at their discretion to make any type of marriage illegal.

You might want to read some history.

The states have a poor record on the subject of minority rights. Such as slavery. And segregation. And so forth.

If a person of faith speaks out against gay marriage and the government reprimands that person - then that is the government interfering.. and if you are so naive to think that scenario isn't coming - then I have a nice little bridge to sell you.

You need to read about Westboro Baptist Church. They've already proven the you are wrong. And they did it at the Supreme Court.

What I am saying is is that marriage was never a fundamental right to begin with. For anyone.

I hate to break it to you but people have been getting married (by various definitions) for thousands of years.

Maybe it your personal definition of "fundamental right" that is flawed.

Read the 10th Amendment.

You might learn that our Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of our GOVERNMENT. It was NOT written as a list of the "fundamental rights" of the citizens.

You have it BACKWARDS. The citizens grant the government certain rights. NOT the government granting the citizens certain rights (such as who can marry whom).