Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.arch.arithmetic > #73

Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit...

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

"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. 

Back to comp.arch.arithmetic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

]v[aths for fun and profit... ]v[etaphoid <met@phoid.con> - 2014-06-30 22:12 +1000
  Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... "Mentalguy2k8" <mentalguy2k8@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 13:35 +0100
  Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxviii@popesnews.invalid> - 2014-06-30 14:57 +0100
    Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... ]v[etaphoid <met@phoid.con> - 2014-07-01 00:05 +1000
    Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... Earl Cup <earlcup@yahoo.com> - 2014-07-01 00:22 +1000
      Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... Pope Pompous XVIII <popepompousxviii@popesnews.invalid> - 2014-06-30 15:25 +0100
        Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... Paul Pot <PMD@SIBU.HQ> - 2014-07-01 00:15 +0100
    Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... "Mentalguy2k8" <mentalguy2k8@gmail.com> - 2014-06-30 17:29 +0100
      Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... ]v[etaphoid <met@phoid.con> - 2015-09-24 23:35 +1000
        Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... Prof. ]v[etaphoid <met@phoid.com.canadia> - 2017-11-10 22:53 +1100

csiph-web