"Pope Pompous XVIII" <popepompousxviii@popesnews.invalid> wrote in message news:mn.f3817de67535b1a1.134914@pompous-donkey-tours.com...
"No I don't. I'm not sure you know this but the Catholic priesthood is for >>> men only. Straight away that reduces the average by half. I do hope you
are able to understand this simple bit of arithmetic."
Yes I could have phrased it better. I also readily admit I've always been
useless at maths.
Let's try again: if paedophiles number 3-4% of the general adult
population, male and female, then it follows that the number of paedophile >> priests *as a percentage of the adult population, male and female* is much >> lower than 3-4%, given the number of priests is only a small percentage of >> the adult population.
That better?
Not better, it's different to what you originally said but it's still wrong. A percentage is a percentage is a percentage, Popey.
If 1 in 5 people are gay, that means statistically, 20% of the population are gay. If you isolate a small (say 5%) group of that population, the incidence of gay people is still statistically 20%, it doesn't reduce just because you've chosen a smaller subset of the original population. 20% of 70 million people is the same ratio as 20% of 6 people, 1:5 or 1 in 5 or 20%.
And worse, by excluding women, you're actually making the point that the the (all-male) Priesthood is far more inclined towards paedophilia than the general (mixed) population, because the rest of us have plenty of women among us to bring down the average.
The only thing I can guess that you're trying to say is that there are less paedophiles who are priests, than paedophiles who aren't priests. Which may well be true, but given that priests are such a small percentage of the population, it's meaningless unless you express it as a ratio.
Mentalguy2k8 pretended :
"Pope Pompous XVIII" <popepompousxviii@popesnews.invalid> wrote in message >> news:mn.f3817de67535b1a1.134914@pompous-donkey-tours.com...
"No I don't. I'm not sure you know this but the Catholic priesthood is >>>> for men only. Straight away that reduces the average by half. I do hope >>>> you are able to understand this simple bit of arithmetic."
Yes I could have phrased it better. I also readily admit I've always been >>> useless at maths.
Let's try again: if paedophiles number 3-4% of the general adult
population, male and female, then it follows that the number of paedophile >>> priests *as a percentage of the adult population, male and female* is much >>> lower than 3-4%, given the number of priests is only a small percentage of >>> the adult population.
That better?
Not better, it's different to what you originally said but it's still
wrong. A percentage is a percentage is a percentage, Popey.
If 1 in 5 people are gay, that means statistically, 20% of the population
are gay. If you isolate a small (say 5%) group of that population, the
incidence of gay people is still statistically 20%, it doesn't reduce just >> because you've chosen a smaller subset of the original population. 20% of
70 million people is the same ratio as 20% of 6 people, 1:5 or 1 in 5 or
20%.
And worse, by excluding women, you're actually making the point that the
the (all-male) Priesthood is far more inclined towards paedophilia than the >> general (mixed) population, because the rest of us have plenty of women
among us to bring down the average.
The only thing I can guess that you're trying to say is that there are less >> paedophiles who are priests, than paedophiles who aren't priests. Which may >> well be true, but given that priests are such a small percentage of the
population, it's meaningless unless you express it as a ratio.
In retrospect, this place has been a lot more solemn since Popey made his spiritual retreat in the wake of this humiliation...
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 69:49:56 |
Calls: | 6,488 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,275,482 |