Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    Kyoopy2

    + friends - friends
    1 link karma
    5,926 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] There's not 2 genders Kyoopy2 1 points ago in ImGoingToHellForThis

    It's like in the top few posts in r/all. I wonder where the diverse ground came from.

    [–] TIL that the average life expectancy for those with Down syndrome has gone from 12 years in 1912, to 25 years in the 1980's, to upwards of 60 years in the developed world today. Kyoopy2 1 points ago in todayilearned

    If there were a group of beings that far surpassed the physical and mental capacities of even the most potent humans, would it cause you to lose desire to live in this reality? In a way, being a consciousness is always an act of being bound to a physical form that causes suffering. As long as they don't express consistent desire for death, I say their life is a life worth living.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 0 points ago in MensRights

    "There are plenty of situations where the statistic being displayed in this way is completely appropriate and relevant." I stated to you - to which you responded "Name one". Now unless you were compiling a list of appropriate uses of the statistic, or unless you have a nervous tick that involves typing "name one" to random comments on Reddit - the only possible reason you could have to say that is that you disagreed that such a situation existed. As such, you, yourself, did indeed insinuate that you believe the statistic itself is inherently flawed - a statement that you defended for a number of comments after. Yes, you did try to defend the fact that somehow the statistic is flawed inherently, and that there is no necessity to have the context of the picture revealed. You were most certainly in the camp of people in the thread I am criticizing, those who simply allowed confirmation bias to take hold without searching for important contextual information. Whether or not the contextual information proved or disproved your and other's case is not relevant to the fact that a failure to search it out is a failure of logic, and is necessary to question. It is a failure of OP, who could have made a certainly foolproof argument by actually citing the article in question instead of leaving a bit of circumstantial-at-best-evidence for users to suppose over, it is a failure of commenters for piling on with anecdotes and comments discussing the article without mentioning any of the content besides the graph, and it is a failure of you for trying to defend that the context is not necessary to judge the statistic.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 1 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago) in MensRights

    The first mention of the actual article does not appear until dozens of comments into the thread, at the time of the posting of my original comment - there was not a single mention of the original article in the thread. Confirmation bias, anecdotal evidence, and general sexist remarks appear in most of the top comments on the post. The OP made no effort to elucidate the source of the article, in fact the initial picture is downright blatant in its presentation of the statistic without context. I have received numerous replies to my posts that the graphic itself is sexist, regardless of any possible evidence. It is painfully clear that, no, the collective voices of this thread have not viewed the evidence in full. You continue to comment about my non-mention of evidence - after failing to counter any of my continued proof that the conclusion is not relevant to my argument - the faulty logic is.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 0 points ago in MensRights

    I'm sorry, I never try to do this, I absolutely hate ending a discussion before it has truly ended, but you are completely and utterly failing to understand something that I have laid out as obviously and simple as humanely possible. I don't comprehend how you don't understand that a conclusion founded on poor logic can be criticized regardless of final correctness of the conclusion. You're trying to argue that there is no such thing as an informal logical fallacy, which is a foundational aspect of logic - one which, if you cannot understand, discussion is not possible. Until you can comprehend that logic can be false while a claim can be true, I see no way that you can ever engage in an even partially successful discussion - unless you do understand this concept and are just ignoring it. Do you mean to tell me that, somehow, a true statement can have any sort of logic defending it - and any logic that describes a finally true statement is correct. You mean to say that cows moo because there are seven days in a week? That grass is green because humans have hair? That wind blows because 3*4=12? If somebody said "I hate cheese because Africa is a large continent" would you defend them by saying, "they hate cheese, which means there is no flaw in their reasoning"? If you were a math teacher and you asked the question "a=b, b=c, and c=d, does a equal d, why?", would you give them a correct mark for "a=d because my mom has blonde hair"? Would you say that anybody criticizing is wrong because a=d? What if an excerpt from a book was shown that read "...women are better than men..." - and people ensued to freak out over the sexism of the comment until it was revealed the full statement ended in "at giving birth"? Would it then be right to criticize them, because they were wrong in the end? Does the fact that faulty logic is in place not justify criticism at all? What if it turned out the statement was in the end, actually sexist, then would they be in the right and criticizers in the wrong? Even though the same fundamental flaw was present regardless of the end result? Bad evidence+good conclusion does not equal good evidence. I honestly don't know how else to explain this to you. Unless you can understand that, fundamentally, an argument an contain flaws while even the end conclusion is true, I don't see how I can entertain this discussion anymore. I can't argue with somebody who thinks that "1+1=2 because the sky is blue" is w valid statement.

    [–] Where to find decent recordings of percussion literature? Kyoopy2 1 points ago in Percussionists

    Don't mean to state the obvious but... YouTube? Probably dozens of yatr recordings, at least some of which qualify as at least half decent. Vic firth has started some project on uploading common marimba songs played (pretty) well, and are already a few dozen in. Most uncommon repertoire that we transcribe should be on YouTube as well.

    [–] It’s Time to Start Calling Evangelicals What They Are: The American Taliban Kyoopy2 17 points ago in atheism

    On the other hand, if America was a shitty, drought, ridden war torn, illiterate, desert, and the Middle East was an economic and human rights bastion, I'm sure you'd have more blowing up Christians and less blowing up Muslims. Intellectually, they are the same, they have just been pushed to different extremes by their environments.

    [–] Both are in the wrong but look at how the pictures are depicted Kyoopy2 1 points ago in BlackPeopleTwitter

    Completely for equal treatment within the justice system and the media, but creating an argument based on two pieces of data, which could easily be cherry picked any way, is a weak claim.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 0 points ago in MensRights

    Jake, I'm sorry but you're arguing in logical circles on the same points which you have yet to be able to successfully defend against my counters. As I said I my previous comment, and my comments before that, and I will say in this comment, MY CLAIM DOES NOT REST ON ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTUAL CONTEXT. If you look at my main comment on the thread, or any comment following, I am trying to bring to light the fact that the people in this thread should not jump to conclusions about the statistic without context, WHICH IS A STATEMENT I CAN MAKE WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHAT THE ACTUAL CONTEXT IS, AS IT IS NOT STATING THAT THEY ARE WRONG, BUT THAT THEIR ANALYSIS OF THE DATA US FLAWED. People in the first few dozens of comments are comply railing against the fact that there is a presentation of data, without bringing into question any relevant information from the article whatsoever, the post clearly and deliberately attempts to hide relevant information from the article, and to top it all off many of the stop commenters are bringing in their own anecdotal evidence on top of not referencing back to the articles sources for the j formation. This is an issue that, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACTUAL CONTEXT, is a fundamental flaw in trying to construct an argument, and use of confirmation bias. It is, like I said in my previous example, like if somebody said "1+1=2 because the sky is blue", IT WOULD NOT MATTER IF THEIR FINAL ANSWER WAS RIGHT, IT IS A FLAW IN REASONING. And you cannon insinuate that everybody in this thread has considered the context, because most of the most scathing comments in the thread were posted at a point before anybody linked the article whatsoever, and even if they all had it was still necessary to call out OP's fault for making a low quality post without linking the article himself. To top it all off, many commenters, even you yourself, have directly stated that the statistic itself is inherently sexist. I have engaged with a number of people, check my comment history, who have insisted vehemently that there is literally no possible situation in which that statistic could be relevant in any way whatsoever. Actually you shouldn't need to check your comment history because, despite your claims that literally nobody insists the statistic is sexist, you yourself, in your failed defense "homes less per women" instead of "women per homeless, did indeed try to claim that the statistic itself was inherently flawed. Remember? I said that there are possible situations which this statistic should be appropriate and you said, "Name one". So I am claiming a falsehood in the logical analysis and presentation of data in the thread, independent of the actual correctness of the conclusions, my claim is criticizing the treatment of the data itself. THIS CLAIM IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF THE CONTEXT, AS I STATED IN MY "1+1"= 2 BECAUSE THE SKY IS BLUE EXAMPLE, THE STATEMENT, AS IN THE EXAMPLE, IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUALLY CORRECTNESS OF THE FINAL CONCLUSION IS I REQUEST THAT YOU STOP BRINGING THAT UP OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE FAILING TO ACTUALLY MAKE IN SORT OF COUNTER TO WHY IT IS NECESSARY FOR MY CLAIM TO CONSIDER CONTEXT. In summary, every single statement you have made in your previous comment rings false. Repeating yourself is the intellectual equivalent of chasing your own tail and hoping to catch it, unless you can make a statement that is new, or present your information in a new way that somehow completely changes its meaning, any following repetition of the same few sentences is just presenting arguments that have already been countered - again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

    [–] I was married at 32 and had my first kid at 36. It's going to be fine. Kyoopy2 2 points ago in AdviceAnimals

    While I'd imagine infant mortality does bring the statistic down a lot, I have a hard time believing as many serfs, peasants, or slaves lived into their 80s like is expected of most people now.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 2 points ago in MensRights

    Bold, font, and color are used to draw attention to a relevant part of a statistic, which, without the context, you have no way of determining whether or not is relevant in a sexist manner or not. It is not incorrect for me to not mention the context in that statement, because I am not bringing into question the sexism or lack thereof in the article, but rated the flaw in the presentation of the article and the discussion of the article in this thread. The statistic is not sexist, it was incorrect for the poster to not use the context, and most of the popular claims in this thread are either based off of purely a contextless statistic or various other unreliable or anecdotal sources. As my claim is to bring attention to that, me discussing the actual content of the thread is irrelevant, as I am not disagreeing with anybody's conclusions, but rather the means by which they distill those conclusions. The means are flawed, because they use a statistic that is not inherently sexist and fail to discuss the context through which the statistic is presented.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 2 points ago in MensRights

    Taken at face value, the statistic is a statement of a fact. You say that it's flawed people would wonder about possible contexts, yet you have supposed yourself that for some reason it has to have negative connotation. It is incorrect to assume the context of a statistic, especially when there are many valid, invalid, and everything in between possibilities of the statistic. I, again and again I state, am not arguing that the context is a justifiable context - I am arguing that the argumentative acquisition and presentation of evidence used by many in this thread, as well as the OP himself - are flawed. Like if somebody says "1+1=2 because the sky is blue", you can criticize their logic while not necessarily disagreeing with their final claim.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 1 points ago in MensRights

    Unless I'm having a stroke or something, OP never made any sort of comment with the article, so only those found it were those who specifically searched it out used the fragmented text accidentally featured in the cropped photo. And when the first ten or so comments follow as "anecdotal evidence" "anecdotal evidence" "snide remark with no mention of the content of the article" "anecdotal evidence".. There is clearly an issue of understanding what constitutes good and bad evidence in this environment.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 6 points ago in MensRights

    I, in no way, dispute the fact that the article is questionable in its use of the statistic. All I take issue with is the presentation of the statistic in this post, completely lacking relevant information from the article.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 1 points ago in MensRights

    This is one of those cases exactly, actually. The problem I see, a rather large one, is a flaw in understanding interpreting data. Right in front of me is a post on Reddit completely lacking in context, and arguments being formed based on said contextless information. Having an inability to critically think is a very, very, large problem - not small by any means - and as it is "right in front of me", it makes perfect sense to address it. The point of the what if statements is not that they are true, but that, as far as the post tells you, they could be true - to articulate the point that the post lacks relevant information about the statistic is poses.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 2 points ago in MensRights

    "Only looking at" does not equal "viewing with more importance". It is important to be a well informed member of the public, and as such publishing a piece about a less well represented group (female homeless), is important. What if legislature went through in a local community based on needs of homeless shelters, as it pertains to women's care? Then it would be incredibly important that the public understand how many women constitute the homeless population. Every article cannot address a wholistic issue, everything has to have some lens to it. If we only reported on majorities every single minority group would be unrepresented - a large problem. Now if somebody's argument was that there is an overly representative amount of articles being published on women in the homeless population, there is no fundamental flaw with that. However stating that reporting on women in homelessness is flawed inherently is, well, an inherently flawed statement.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 1 points ago in MensRights

    (I can't respond to your first point, as it contains no actual logic. Simply stating that I am grasping at straws without proving my evidence false is not an argument) In many contexts of articles, bold and colored is a relevant way to display information. What if it was an article about tampons being introduced to homeless shelters, and they wanted to demonstrate that more homeless than you may think are women? Then it would be relevant to present the information in this bold and striking way. Neither is that context sexist, as it's simply good reporting on an event, with relevant and well designed graphical statistic. So the graphic itself is not inherently biased, even though it's context may be. Which is exactly what I'm saying --- The point I have made, only ever made, and will continue to make, is that this post and many comments upon it are flawed in that the post did not contain nor reference the original article, and many top commenters do not either. Context may reveal the graphic is indeed sexist, I'm just saying that the graphic is not inherently sexist.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 1 points ago in MensRights

    I'm not saying the article gives fair treatment - I'm saying that you can't tell based on this small graphic.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 2 points ago in MensRights

    There are lots of good reasons to base it on gender. Men and women have different healthcare needs, so there is a good reason to analyze gender statistics in suffering groups. What if homeless shelters had equal health coverage of mammograms and prostate exams, even though men make up a much larger percentage of the homeless? What if homeless shelters don't provide tampons/pads, even though females make up a sizable amount of the homeless population? That would be silly, and failing to understand the homeless demographic would be a good way to lead to one of those situations - which aren't good for homeless men or women. I also don't see why such an analysis of gender would lead to men being increasingly represented in homeless/suicide probe/uneducated groups. Those are a result of bad cultural and societal customs, not good statistical understanding of groups.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 2 points ago in MensRights

    You didn't counter the fundamental idea that weighted against total population is not always the best way to interpret information. For an extreme example, would you rather know per capita how many serial killers are in your house, or how many serial killers are in your house period? For a realistic example, would a homeless shelter, in buying tampons, rather know what percentage of women are homeless weighted against how many women there are, or what percentage of women are homeless relative to men? What if you were a random member of the public, curious about how many women compose X group of things traditionally thought to be oriented around men? What if you were a prison owner looking into necessary health care professionals and deciding what diseases will most commonly treated? Would you want percent of ethnic groups relative to how much that group represents itself in total population, or what percent of each ethnic group is being admitted period? In all of these situations you would rather have a non weighted example. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we started out discussing, which was whether or not there are situations where this statistic is relevant, not whether or not the particular article is one. You even specifically asked a form of that question, which started our whole talk. My fundamental claim rests on the fact that context is needed, not that, with context, this statistic is justifiable. We are not discussing the article, but of the potential validity of this statistic and this subreddit's biased treatment of it.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 5 points ago in MensRights

    I'm not arguing that the article is justified in its used but that the voices currently dominating the discussion in the thread clearly haven't even read the article in question whatsoever, and that is a flawed way to interpret data.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 2 points ago in MensRights

    There are plenty of relevant reasons to occasionally analyze minority groups of people. That's like saying we should only cure all common diseases before moving to uncommon ones, sometimes the way to lower total human suffering is to work from multiple angles at once.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 3 points ago in MensRights

    Minority groups within homeless population, as in groups that make up small amounts of the homeless.

    [–] Apparently Homelessness is only a Problem if you are a Woman. Kyoopy2 2 points ago in MensRights

    Why would you necessarily be looking at relative representation per capita? That lens doesn't make much sense for plenty of applications, especially of the article is specifically about the lives of homeless people or the operation of homeless shelters. Per capita is often a useful way to look at data, but certainly not always. Your second point is also kind of non-sensical, if you wanted to know how many women are x, y, and z (distribution within a respective group), you wouldn't be helped by knowing what percentage of women are homeless. What if the article was addressing monetary dedication (whether or not over or underrepresented) of feminine care (health products, gyno visits, maternity, etc,) vs. masculine care (prostate exams, increased suicide prevention, etc.)? Then certainly it would be useless to know what percent of women are homeless, you'd have to know what percent of homeless are women. Moving on, why would there not be change over time? You're telling me homeless has the exact same distribution now as it did ten, 100, and 1000 years ago? Moving on some more, I would not have said 25% of homeless are women had you asked me. In media particularly, it seems to my personal bias (misconception) that most are portrayed as men, so I would have guessed more like 5 or 10%. Finally, highlighting and use of fonts/colors is how you draw the eye to anything important to the purpose of the article. It's good design, not stressing that females are more important than males in a societal sense.