Premarital sex isn't the issue at all though. The "issue" appears to be the fact that Campus Health is no longer offering the sale of contraceptives at a cheap price. Which, in my opinion, is not an issue at all.

As far as I know, they are still providing condoms. As far as I know, they are still selling contraceptives at other stores. This isn't going to stop pre-marital sex, this isn't going to increase the amounts of pregnancy at Mac, this is really not going to affect anyone.

Mac saves a few bucks, some students have to spend a bit more. I would personally love for them to save money whenever possible so that tuition fees don't go up as much.

Off-topic: Mowicz, care to talk a bit more about this book? You're brief description really piqued my interest.

Wow Andrew, I really don't know how you end up assuming that money saved here would help you out in some other area!

Campus Health isn't a buisness, It is a student service; a very important one detrimental to the well being of students! I have no idea how their health comes after something else.

And Campus Health is part of the Student Affairs seciton of the Administration, that SA has an annual Budget of 80 Million! (I still haven't re-found the source for it, but I am 99% sure) So even with the recession and all I really don't think Health Care should be the first place to cut costs when there are record numbers of new students entering McMaster this year.

I'm not sure I follow...

One would hope that Campus Health would not be detrimental to student well being!

I don't think it takes a large leap to assume that student services saving money where they can means that they will need less money to operate. That might not help me directly, but good financial sense among all student services means that tuition prices don't need to rise as much.

Money saved here will hopefully be spent in someplace where it is needed, most likely still within Campus Health. You pointed out yourself that Campus Health isn't a business, its not like they are trying to raise profits with this move. They wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't a better use for the money. And I mean, who is really affected by this move? Contraceptives are still available for a slightly higher price in other places, and condoms are still available. If they were talking about cutting something like giving out antibiotics, then we might have a problem.

Although I do admit I don't have much of an idea what it is that Campus Heath actually does, so maybe I'm missing something. I'll post again once I find out what they do in more detail.

I'm not sure I follow...

One would hope that Campus Health would not be detrimental to student well being!

I don't think it takes a large leap to assume that student services saving money where they can means that they will need less money to operate.

Money saved here will hopefully be spent in someplace where it is needed, most likely still within Campus Health. You pointed out yourself that Campus Health isn't a business, its not like they are trying to raise profits with this move. They wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't a better use for the money.

That might not help me directly, but good financial sense among student services means that tuition prices don't need to rise as much.

Although I do admit I don't have much of an idea what it is that Campus Heath actually does, so maybe I'm missing something. I'll post again once I find out what they do.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Before things get heated, since this is kinda the perfect time for people to start jumping at each others' throats, I'd like to point out that to really verify whether or not someone is 'ignorant' or their beliefs/opinions are 'silly,' you must put yourself into their shoes and take their assumptions at face value.

You, personally, with your own assumptions, may think it's ignorant or that someone has archaic / barbaric / you name it, beliefs. But it doesn't mean the other person, whose opinion you may personally find silly, hasn't given the issue a lot of thought and come to what in their opinion, is a reasoned conclusion. (This philosophy is the topic of a book I'm working on. Ironically, I take a mathematical approach using Formal Systems)

-----------------

As for my personal opinion on the matter (so please don't take it too seriously, or get offended), though I'm not going to go around wagging my finger at everyone...I think I try to be a peaceful guy if I do say so myself...I do feel a lot of, perhaps even most, people who have casual sex are misguided. Basing my opinions on my own experiences and 'gut instincts' in regards to certain issues, I feel as though this 'freedom' that everyone is so bent out of shape over, is so important because quite frankly, it feels good. I'm of the opinion that the modern society has a bit too much of a quote unquote "feel-good attitude." The Simpsons ridiculed the idea, by introducing the whole Brad Goodman "Feel Good Rainbow" thing and exaggerating it (if anyone remember the episode, the theme is "I do what I feel like"), but I think this is a bit problematic.

In short, when people start chasing after what 'feels good' so fervently**, their priorities have drastically shifted from what, in my opinion, would be a healthy balance. I think I've had a lot more balance in my life since I found one single partner to be with.

**Note that I'm not accusing anyone specific of this, and I'm also not assuming casual sex is responsible for it.

The way I see it, it's almost like a chicken/egg, or disease/symptom argument. Is Casual sex the cause of this inclined notion of doing what feels good at all costs? Most likely it isn't (again, in my opinion)...but is it an effect of this society's shifting mindset toward the pleasurable? Is it an indicator?

i would buy this book!!! too bad i dropped Philos for Physics coz i like this topic of analyzing from everyone's point of views

Originally Posted by meerf

i do agree with you but im just saying that in some ways this can be good which restricts girls getting knocked up and then getting abortions

*facepalm*

Believe it or not, I doubt that Campus Health ceasing to provide birth control is going to be a wake up call to stop having pre marital sex for many people. Not many are going to say *gasp! no more birth control! I guess we should give up this sin that is sex!*

They are either going to
a) Purchase BC somewhere else, or
b) Stop using BC, which makes sex LESS safe.

This is in no way going to stop girls from getting "knocked up and then getting abortions."

I havent read this whole thing so i dont know if it's been brought up, but some of us use birth control pills/rings to keep our menstrual cycles regular and manageable, not/not only for stopping having babies.

They don't stop the transfer of STDs but they do stop pregnancies.. which is obviously a plus....

I just dont see why a health centre aimed at people 18-23 would stop this. It seems like the exact target age for BCPs!!

Originally Posted by Geek

They are either going to
a) Purchase BC somewhere else, or
b) Stop using BC, which makes sex LESS safe.

This is in no way going to stop girls from getting "knocked up and then getting abortions."

I believe this is a false dichotomy...infact, there's no reason why someone might not go "Crap, I don't have any BC, so I better think twice about giving in to my urges tonight."

The way you state a) and b) makes it sound like you believe people are inherently stupid...like they can't make a 'smart' decision about their body and are a slave to their urges.

I'm not saying no one is stupid like that, but to say everyone, or even more than half of people, is kind of a pessimistic outlook in my opinion. To put it differently, imagine someone is in a bar and they haven't administered the pill. They meet a guy, things get rolling, and then she has a decision to make:

A) Have sex
B) Don't have sex

Assuming everyone will have sex anyway is assuming no one has better sense. I'd like to think most people would choose option B given this situation.

---------------------

EDIT: I guess I can go into a bit more detail about my book since I did provide an on-topic post here (and since you asked nicely (: )

The theme of the book is essentially "Put yourself in the other person's shoes." I'm not quite sure if I could write a good fictional novel with this theme (I'm still thinking about a possible plot though), or if I'll just make it like, a mathematical presentation of that theme. The mathematics is real mathematics...but the beauty part is, it's really easy to understand! Most people just haven't been introduced to this style of thinking. (This area of math is called Mathematical Logic by the way)

The Following is regarding my book...please skip it if you're not interested:

----------------------

The Math

Don't be discouraged as it's relatively easy, but necessary to understanding my reasoning. As I alluded above, my philosophy centers around a mathematical object called a formal system. To introduce some terminology, a formal system is a set of axioms and a set of rules of inference together.

1) An axiom is basically going to represent something which is assumed to be true, but not proven. Math itself, and thus science, are full of all sorts of axioms which inhibit our perception of absolute truth. (I'll get into this later)
2) A rule of inference is basically "if this is true, then this must be true."

These axioms and rules of inference specify every single 'theorem' which can be derived in this system. (However, mathematically it's been shown that there are true statements within that system which cannot be derived or proven, as well as false statements which cannot be proven false).

What does this mean? Let's create a little formal system, for fun.

Our formal system will consist of strings of symbols, it can only include {# , $ , *}, the pound sign, asterisks and dollar signs. Let's start easy, with only one axiom. We will decide that our axiom will be:

AXIOM: *$*#**

For now, we only know that this one string, is a theorem (we've stated that it is by declaring it an axiom). Now we need to specify our rule of inference.

RULE 1: Suppose x is a theorem...then *x* is also a theorem.

(In other words, add asterisks to the beginning and end of any theorem to produce a new theorem.)

This means, since *$*#** is a theorem **$*#*** is also...and then so is ***$*#****, and so forth (there are infact, infinitely many theorems already!).


So what do these strings of symbols mean? It's just a bunch of stupid symbols! Any formal system requires an interpretation (very important!) Take a look at the above symbols and try to come up with an interpretation for each symbol that makes sense to you (there is more than one answer!). (:








Did you think of addition? Sure, that's how and why I designed it that way. (:

Let the number of asterisks appearing in a row represent a number. So * is 1, ** is 2, etc.
Let $ represent +
Let # represent =

Under this interpretation, our axiom is 1 + 1 = 2, and our rule of inference is adding one to the left and right sides of the equation. 2 + 1 = 3, 3 + 1 = 4, and so forth.

We say this formal system is consistent, because 1 + 1 = 2 is true, and our rule of inference is sound (adding one to both sides of an equation keeps the things equal). We say it is incomplete however, since we can't derive the statement 1 + 2 = 3, which is a true statement about addition! But we cannot get the string *$**#*** using our axiom and rule of inference! Even though it 'should' be a true statement about addition.

So what if we play around with our interpretation? What if we take this formal system to be adding one?

Then our system is still consistent for the same reason, and it is complete! Because 1 + 2 = 3 is not a statement regarding adding 1 (Don't be confused about the whole 1 + 2 = 2 + 1 thing. You have to forget what you know about numbers, because remember that we're working with symbols!).

So that shows there are already 2 different interpretations for our formal system (and there are even more!)

One more important note: If I start with the axiom **$*#*, or 2+1=1 under our interpretation, then this is a valid statement! Even though common sense tells us 2 + 1 =\= 1, any hardcore mathematician would deduce 2 + 1 = 1, 3 + 1 = 2, and so forth.

So the formal system in question does matter. In the original formal system, the statement 2 + 1 = 1 is silly, because we know 2 + 1 = 3 (ie. we can derive **$*#***)! This is precisely why you must 'put yourself' in someone else's formal system to see if their beliefs are valid.

That introduces the math, now I'll move onto the relevant part.

----------------------

Relating the Math to People

So now we know what a formal system is, axioms and rules of inference.

I propose that people are themselves (very complicated) formal systems! They have axioms, beliefs which they assume true without proof, and rules of inference which aren't very clear or easy to identify. But for whatever reasons, people can deduce things on their own, albeit not always correctly.

Everyone believes things without proof...that's just how it is! Whether you believe in the supernatural, the natural, the scientific, the mathematical, the philosophical, whatever it is, there's no proof. As I alluded above, if there is such a thing as absolute truth, then we cannot be reasonably sure of it! All we know is what we see in front of us...but what about a skitsophrenic? They see the world completely differently from a healthy individual, and must rely on another person to relay the information to them. What is true to this person?

Let's take a rather silly example. Have you ever been driving, and some guy comes up to tail gate you? You probably said "Gah, lookit this jackass, going so fast..." Or perhaps you were the tailgater, who is thinking "Gah, lookit this jackass, take your pedal off the break!"

Both people think the other is an idiot without stopping to think about what they feel. But who is wrong? I didn't tell you what speed they were travelling, or what the speed limit is! What if the speed limit is 45 and they're going 20? Then the guy in front is wrong, but if the speed limit is 45 and they're going 50, then the tailgater is the one being pushy! The important thing to note is, regardless of who is wrong they both think the other is an idiot.

So what does this mean? What insight do I have to offer?

----------------------

People as Formal Systems

In math, it's very easy to adopt a certain set of axioms and rules of inference and 'seeing what is true.' With people this is arguably, much more difficult, particularly because we don't know what rules of inference someone has! So what do we do?

Suppose I got in an argument with someone about this philosophy. They're challenging its validity and asserting that I'm just blowing hot air. So how do I, as an avid believer in said philosophy, go about reacting to the situation?

1) Adopt their axioms - I try my best (it will never be perfect) to see what their assumptions or predispositions are. Perhaps an easier example to illustrate my point is religion. Does the opposite party explicitly believe in a higher power? Do they explicitly not believe in one? You have to forget what you believe, and look exclusively at their assumptions. Sometimes you may have to ask questions, like "Is {something} true? Do you think {this thing}?" but there's nothing wrong with asking questions.

2) Use your Rules of Inference - Since all I know is my own reasoning, I try to deduce their asserted statement in a step by step manner. If I can come to a valid conclusion and see their perspective then that's just awesome...and if not, then you'll at least be able to see a bit more into what 'mistakes' (again from your perspective) they may be making.

3) React Accordingly - If I was very mad at this person for challenging my philosophy, and I could see why they would doubt it, should I be mad? Probably not right? I can try to be civil and convince them, or I can accept that they will never be able to see my perspective (at least I'd have tried my best to see theirs), or naturally, I can see that their view makes sense and possibly even alter my own! If I can't see their perspective or it seems faulty to me, even when using their axioms, then I can continue trying to persuade them and show them the alleged 'error' that I perceive.

The example I'd like to mention in my book (perhaps it'd be a theme in a fictional version of the book) is infidelity. Suppose your spouse cheats on you, but you can use 1-2-3 above to see that if you were in their position, you may have done the same thing.

Though this would not make infidelity ustifiably ok, maybe you could accept that for whatever reason things happened, and you may be able to take some sort of action, such as being more affectionate, or if it's the end of the road, acknowledge that divorce is imminent.

----------------------

As for other ideas:

1) Science and Religion: I think it's important to 'cut people down' in this book. Many people cling to their beliefs, and perhaps the most severe occurances of this are the atheist vs religious arguments, and an assumption that what they believe is absolute truth.

Religion is clearly not proven truth (after all, that's the essence of faith), and science isn't either! (Not to knock either one, I respect both perspectives (: ) Here is a very simple example I'm pulling out of my butt right now to demonstrate even scientists have axioms...they have faith in what they do.

Take the model of the atom...the current, most technical one in existence (which I certainly don't know about haha). Do you believe this is the exact model of the atom? That this model will never be improved upon? Or do you believe that it will be tossed aside someday and a new model adopted?

Though this is a silly example, it's strangely provocative isn't it? In either case, it is a belief and one which you have adopted without proof...that's what an axiom is. (: There are a lot more of these than you may think...some rather important ones.

Also note that there is no proof or disproof of a higher power...infact, there are relatively simple proofs that God can neither be disproven nor proven! (I am thinking of putting both of these arguments into my book as well)


2) Not to mention, as someone in Math, I know Math isn't infalliable. Most people seem to think a mathematical proof has no bias, it has no assumptions...but it certainly does! Math is all about axioms...we have assumed very basic statements to be true, and build up complex proofs from these building blocks.

I wanted to mention something called Russell's Paradox and how in the early 1900s, everyone though Math was broken. (They have since adopted a new 'formal system' for Math, and the problem went away, but we don't know if in 1000 years or something, a new problem will arise that we've never thought of!) Russell's Paradox is basically a mathematical version of "This statement is false." Math fell apart, and everyone was all nervous, afraid that tried and tested methods such as calculus, and thus science were faulty!

Luckily it was (relatively) easily remedied by changing the building blocks which we assume to be true, and mathematicians didn't have to do too much extra work to 're-prove' theorems and stuff. But if math were to drastically change, we would have to rediscover everything! (Currently, the adopted framework is something called the Zermaelo-Fraenkl Set Theory)


3) There is an argument I like to present to people, to really put things in perspective. Suppose God is real (as I said, you have to believe otherwise, without proof). God is all-knowing and all-powerful by definition. So how do we know, God didn't create everything this exact instant, with all of our memories intact?

How do we know for certain that we existed, even half a second ago? You have to believe otherwise. I'm not saying I believe this is the case (although from here I'm sure you can deduce that I can't be sure of whether or not God exists)...it's just a 'what if' scenario that I think is kinda neat. It's like the whole Descartes "I think therefore I am" thing (he was a mathematician too by the way!)



There are various other topics I'd like to cover, like religion vs religion or science vs science. I'd also like to point that, even though I'm saying a person's beliefs are 'play-things' here, I believe they are important and deserve the utmost of care. I'd like to indicate this in a chapter, saying how I personally feel peoples' axioms are shaped by their gut feelings (you can call them instinct, or divine inspiration, depending on what you believe) and experiences. Each and every person's unique beliefs are important...and you should embrace what it is that you believe.

Anyway, the book's still a work in progress, I've been thinking about this for a year and a half-ish so far...I'm not even 100% sure I'll end up finishing.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

I believe this is a false dichotomy...infact, there's no reason why someone might not go "Crap, I don't have any BC, so I better think twice about giving in to my urges tonight."

The way you state a) and b) makes it sound like you believe people are inherently stupid...like they can't make a 'smart' decision about their body and are a slave to their urges.

Well if you believe that people who are in long term committed relationships, (who have been having sex with birth control before this occurence) are going to suddenly stop b/c birth control is not immediately available ... is naive.

I don't believe everyone will suddenly just practice unsafe sex, I believe they will find an alternate source of birth control. Of course there are those that will decide that alternate forms of contraception are "safe enough" ... but hopefully this isn't the majority.

EDIT: Your book sounds really awesome. I'm confused though... is this part of a research project (I know you're just starting graduate studies from some of your other threads) or just a personal endeavour? Either way, good luck!

I realllyy think you guys are being a bit naive(Mike here for example), I still think alot of people will end up choosing choice B even if that is irrational. You are very good with numbers sir but life is much more complicated then a two fold Dillemna: Choose the Correct option A or Choose the Wrong option B. You will be surprised at how many apparently irrational descsions people make, life isn't just numbers and variables

I am saying that as a student of a subjective subject known as Sociology, that is pretty much what it is mostly about(atleast the areas I will concentrate on): Why people make irrational choices even if it means they will suffer long term consequences. It doesn't directly imply that they are stupid, just that they are "human". Why Do people smoke, do drugs and drink till they are wayyy over wasted? Is that rational? No. The body is a slave to their urges more often then not! Well atleast that's just my view of it! I don't think people will make the extra effort to obtain BC at higher prices from off campus sources.

Also people at bars are normally hammered, it brings down the rationality meter even down! I don't think there is an accurate spreadsheet that can predict human behaviour under those circumstances!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Andrew: You are assuming that the budget for Campus Health is constant and that money "Saved" here would be allocated somewhere else, I'm not so sure. Campus health is a subdivision of the Student Affairs section of the Administration where a huge chunk of our tuition goes, chances are that the budget has been cut from the Student Affairs; the summary of the story? Blame the Admin (Obviously based on the rationale that the budget assumptions are true!) Also on the contrary to what you are saying the very fact that it is a "health service" means that unlike a buisness they cannot cut costs and shut down operations if they feel so. They should be able to demand more money from the multi million student affairs division!

Could / Should the MSU offer some sort of financial support to the Campus Health Centre to keep this program going (or rather reinstate it now that it is no longer being provided)?

Originally Posted by Geek

Well if you believe that people who are in long term committed relationships, (who have been having sex with birth control before this occurence) are going to suddenly stop b/c birth control is not immediately available ... is naive.

That wasn't my point though, I was actually saying in that hypothetical scenario (which for some people will be a reality), will they proceed and have unsafe sex anyway?

Assuming they would is kinda pessimistic in my opinion. I'd like to think smart people in university could control their urges a little better.

I don't believe everyone will suddenly just practice unsafe sex, I believe they will find an alternate source of birth control.

That's what I believe will happen too (: (EDIT: Bolded note to point this particular statement to Huzaifa. Just because I'm acting as a mediator, doesn't mean this is what I personally believe. Sociology is pessimistic. Plus I'm not that good with numbers, because that's not what real Math is about. :p (talk about your naive comments))

I'm just saying I don't think it's a 'have safe sex or have unsafe sex' scenario, and assuming it is, will make you fall victim to a false dichotomy. Some people (hopefully most) in the 2nd boat will opt not to take the risk...I have faith in people, in this way. The fact that Huzaifa does not is the very example of what I was trying to point out. You need to adopt my framework before concluding I am naive...and since you don't really have any idea of what my framework is, it's pretty difficult :p

EDIT: Your book sounds really awesome. I'm confused though... is this part of a research project (I know you're just starting graduate studies from some of your other threads) or just a personal endeavour? Either way, good luck!

Nope, it's just a personal philosophy I've adopted after taking some courses in mathematical logic (and formal systems, model theory, etc). I have some very 'controversial' friends of both, the fundamentalists religion variety, as well as the very anti-religious, right wing and left wingers, straight and gay, "AI is possible" vs "AI is impossible" etc. Very colourful bunch if I do say so myself, haha.

But I get along with everyone because of that philsophy, I like to hear people out and form my own opinions without judging people and (I'd like to think) people enjoy talking to me for the same reasons. (: I know certain 'opposing' friends don't want to discuss politics or whatever unless I'm there to mediate haha.

So as for the actual concept of writing a book, I never intended to until a few different people independently told me that I should write a book. I was initially hesitant because I felt like it was pushing my views on other people, but I've since then come to realize that people are very 'take it or leave it' when it comes to things like this. The willing will read, and the unwilling will not. I'm not writing the book for money, so we'll just have to wait and see. (:

Originally Posted by meerf

i do agree with you but im just saying that in some ways this can be good which restricts girls getting knocked up and then getting abortions

Uhh..
1. It takes two people for a female to get pregnant. Last time I checked anyways. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the female to "restrict" sexual activity.
2. Not everyone who gets pregnant has an abortion so your logic fails. There have been pregnant students on campus even this year. Also, some females who do choose to get pregnant take time off of school to raise the baby and just because you don't see the baby doesn't automatically mean that they're having an abortion.
3. Having an abortion isn't always an easy decision. It may be for some I wouldn't know. Nevertheless, it is a decision that will impact the rest of a person's life.

I just feel really insulted by reading that statement.

Originally Posted by DannyV

Could / Should the MSU offer some sort of financial support to the Campus Health Centre to keep this program going (or rather reinstate it now that it is no longer being provided)?

It is something that can be brought forward to the SRA, yes. But I'm not sure if it's "too late" for this year or not.

Originally Posted by ferreinm

Uhh..
1. It takes two people for a female to get pregnant. Last time I checked anyways. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the female to "restrict" sexual activity.
.

lol! It shouldn't be, but it normally is! Thats just the way things work in the patriachal society of ours. Its simple, the guy doesn't suffer any consequences from having unprotected sex(assuming the female doesn't have any Stds/Aids) and he walks away. Even if the girl does get pregnant there is no way she can impose the pregnancy on the guy she randomly met while intoxicated at a bar. That is why indirectly as sad as it is, responsibility lies in the hands of females.
*waits to be slaughtered by the feminist battalion *