Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.arithmetic > #67 > unrolled thread

]v[aths for fun and profit...

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.arithmetic

Contents

  ]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

#67 — ]v[aths for fun and profit...

Hi All,

A friend and I were having a spirited discussion about arithmetic in 
the discussion below. He contends that because Catholics only allow men 
priests to molest boys, they are only half as likely as the general 
population to be paedophiles, since there are no women.

He's such a funny fellow...

"On a more wholesome note, do you believe that the incidence of 
paedophilia amongst Catholic priests would be consistent with your 
quoted global incidence rates of 3-4%?"

"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."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#68

"]v[etaphoid" <met@phoid.con> wrote in message 
news:lork88$231$1@dont-email.me...

> He's such a funny fellow...
>
> "On a more wholesome note, do you believe that the incidence of 
> paedophilia amongst Catholic priests would be consistent with your quoted 
> global incidence rates of 3-4%?"
>
> "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."

That might hold true if the offending rates were even remotely similar for 
men and women, but males make up at least 96% of the total convicted 
offenders:

"Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders 
may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders On the basis of a 
range of published reports, McConaghy8 estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of 
male-to-female child molesters.

See more at: 
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/psychopathology-and-personality-traits-pedophiles#sthash.L8cOXXLD.dpuf 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69

]v[etaphoid wrote on 2014-06-30 :
> Hi All,
>
> A friend and I were having a spirited discussion about arithmetic in the 
> discussion below. He contends that because Catholics only allow men priests 
> to molest boys, they are only half as likely as the general population to be 
> paedophiles, since there are no women.
>
> He's such a funny fellow...
>
> "On a more wholesome note, do you believe that the incidence of paedophilia 
> amongst Catholic priests would be consistent with your quoted global 
> incidence rates of 3-4%?"
>
> "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?

-- 
+ His Holiness Pope Pompous XVIII

"Our Western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not 
to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by 
the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and 
exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that 
only they can ever be right" - Vladimir Putin, March 2014

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70

Pope Pompous XVIII submitted this idea :
> ]v[etaphoid wrote on 2014-06-30 :
>> Hi All,
>>
>> A friend and I were having a spirited discussion about arithmetic in the 
>> discussion below. He contends that because Catholics only allow men priests 
>> to molest boys, they are only half as likely as the general population to 
>> be paedophiles, since there are no women.
>>
>> He's such a funny fellow...
>>
>> "On a more wholesome note, do you believe that the incidence of paedophilia 
>> amongst Catholic priests would be consistent with your quoted global 
>> incidence rates of 3-4%?"
>>
>> "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?

Nope. Attempting to rewrite flawed logic retrospectively does not make 
it better, nor is it an issue of phrasing, as was evidenced by your 
backdooring it out of the thread.

"Straight away that reduces the average by half..."

Although I will admit to enjoying the irony of your attempted 
maths-based insult, "I do hope you are able to understand this simple 
bit of arithmetic". Nice touch, moron!

Better stick to Nazis and your vehement denials of Saurez's guilt...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71

Pope Pompous XVIII formulated the question :
> ]v[etaphoid wrote on 2014-06-30 :
>> Hi All,
>>
>> A friend and I were having a spirited discussion about arithmetic in the 
>> discussion below. He contends that because Catholics only allow men priests 
>> to molest boys, they are only half as likely as the general population to 
>> be paedophiles, since there are no women.
>>
>> He's such a funny fellow...
>>
>> "On a more wholesome note, do you believe that the incidence of paedophilia 
>> amongst Catholic priests would be consistent with your quoted global 
>> incidence rates of 3-4%?"
>>
>> "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.

Just maths? Thank heavens we can rely on your rock solid knowledge and 
interpretation of international politics!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72

Earl Cup submitted this idea :
> Pope Pompous XVIII formulated the question :
>> ]v[etaphoid wrote on 2014-06-30 :
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> A friend and I were having a spirited discussion about arithmetic in the 
>>> discussion below. He contends that because Catholics only allow men 
>>> priests to molest boys, they are only half as likely as the general 
>>> population to be paedophiles, since there are no women.
>>>
>>> He's such a funny fellow...
>>>
>>> "On a more wholesome note, do you believe that the incidence of 
>>> paedophilia amongst Catholic priests would be consistent with your quoted 
>>> global incidence rates of 3-4%?"
>>>
>>> "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.
>
> Just maths? Thank heavens we can rely on your rock solid knowledge and 
> interpretation of international politics!

At least I don't walk around with the fanny batter of a 60-year-old ho 
bubbling in my nostrils.

-- 
+ His Holiness Pope Pompous XVIII

"It would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to do 
without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" - St Pio of Pietrelcina

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqIl7IB3n4g

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74

Pope Pompous XVIII brought next idea :
> Earl Cup submitted this idea :
>> Pope Pompous XVIII formulated the question :
>>> ]v[etaphoid wrote on 2014-06-30 :
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> A friend and I were having a spirited discussion about arithmetic 
>>>> in the discussion below. He contends that because Catholics only 
>>>> allow men priests to molest boys, they are only half as likely as 
>>>> the general population to be paedophiles, since there are no 
>>>> women.
>>>>
>>>> He's such a funny fellow...
>>>>
>>>> "On a more wholesome note, do you believe that the incidence of 
>>>> paedophilia amongst Catholic priests would be consistent with 
>>>> your quoted global incidence rates of 3-4%?"
>>>>
>>>> "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.
>>
>> Just maths? Thank heavens we can rely on your rock solid knowledge 
>> and interpretation of international politics!
>
> At least I don't walk around with the fanny batter of a 60-year-old 
> ho bubbling in my nostrils.

*splutter*!

-- 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73

"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. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80

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...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97

]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...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.arithmetic

csiph-web