Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.arch.arithmetic > #97
| From | Prof. ]v[etaphoid <met@phoid.com.canadia> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool, comp.arch.arithmetic, alt.support.learning-difficulties |
| Subject | Re: ]v[aths for fun and profit... |
| Date | 2017-11-10 22:53 +1100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ou440l$jb1$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <lork88$231$1@dont-email.me> <mn.f3817de67535b1a1.134914@pompous-donkey-tours.com> <los3a4$jrb$1@dont-email.me> <mu0u3u$arl$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
]v[etaphoid explained : > 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... Personally, I think Popey may have actually been a Michael Thawe sock...
Back to comp.arch.arithmetic | Previous — Previous in thread | Find similar
]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