A touchy subject, I guess

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I'd suggest if someone were to compile the numbers, there would be a higher percentage of accused or convicted molesters within the clergy than any other single occupation

Bottom line - you are no safer at home with your family than you are with your priest.
[/b]

And what is a priest's role?

To thrust 'christian morality' down people's throats.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Are you planning on answering the question?

In days of old you could have called out the inquisition and torture me in an attempt tomake me say what you want. In even older days you could have called out the stoning mob.
But this is now.

I'm content with you insinuating Matthew is wrong and the dilemma you must be facing . You having to turn your back to Christ to keep Paul is more humorous to me than you could ever imagine.

Stay in the Error if you will, it makes no difference to me.

Originally posted by frogstomp
In days of old you could have called out the inquisition and torture me in an attempt tomake me say what you want. In even older days you could have called out the stoning mob.
But this is now.

I'm content with you insinuating Matthew is wrong and the dilemma you must be facing . You having to turn your back t ...[text shortened]... ould ever imagine.

Stay in the Error if you will, it makes no difference to me.

In other words, you don't have an answer.

Spare me the platitudes.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
And what is a priest's role?

To thrust 'christian morality' down people's throats.

Ha ha, very funny.

But you make the right point - priests are supposed to be better than the general population.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
And what is a priest's role?

To thrust 'christian morality' down people's throats.

What right do you have to thrust "liberal morality" down people's throats ?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The bible does, I don't care about opinions when it comes to rightly dividing God's Word.

Rom 1:26-27
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men com ...[text shortened]... g what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
(NKJ)

*cough*king james*cough* 😛 just kidding, man...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I'd suggest if someone were to compile the numbers, there would be a higher percentage of accused or convicted molesters within the clergy than any other single occupation

You'd be wrong.

About 2% of priests are molesters - which is the same as that of the general population of married men (1). For the population as a whole, that figure ...[text shortened]... rasac.org/education/statistics.html
(4) http://www.yellodyno.com/html/child_molester_stats.html[/b]

You'd be wrong.

And you'd be obviously so shaken that your reading comprehension skills have left you. Since when has 'family member' become an occupation?

Could you provide a link please?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8977484
http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-pope17.html

Originally posted by David C
[b]You'd be wrong.

And you'd be obviously so shaken that your reading comprehension skills have left you. Since when has 'family member' become an occupation?

Could you provide a link please?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8977484
http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-pope17.html[/b]

Since when has 'family member' become an occupation?

It isn't - but I just provided the stats to illustrate a point.

As to the occupation bit, the fact that the % of priest-molesters is the same as that of the general population is sufficient to prove that priests do not have a higher % of molesters than any other occupation. This is elementary mathematics.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I don't recall having made a case. I asked a question, that you declined to answer.

But I did. Now I await your comment.[/b]

But I did. Now I await your comment.

No, you didn't. You merely focused on my commentary and avoided the question entirely.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Since when has 'family member' become an occupation?

It isn't - but I just provided the stats to illustrate a point.

As to the occupation bit, the fact that the % of priest-molesters is the same as that of the general population is sufficient to prove that priests do not have a higher % of molesters than any other occupation. This is elementary mathematics.[/b]

As to the occupation bit, the fact that the % of priest-molesters is the same as that of the general population is sufficient to prove that priests do [b]not have a higher % of molesters than any other occupation. This is elementary mathematics.[/b]

I'm no mathemetician, but even I can see this is false: The 'rest of the general population' is also not a single occupation. Please address the question.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In other words, you don't have an answer.

Spare me the platitudes.

No,,, in other words you aint worth talking to

Originally posted by David C
[b]As to the occupation bit, the fact that the % of priest-molesters is the same as that of the general population is sufficient to prove that priests do [b]not have a higher % of molesters than any other occupation. This is elementary mathematics.[/b]

I'm no mathemetician, but even I can see this is false: The 'rest of the general population' is also not a single occupation. Please address the question.[/b]

I'm no mathemetician, but even I can see this is false

Do you want me to prove it mathematically?

Let X be the list of the % of molesters within all occupations, where

X = (X1,X2,...Xn)
Xi = % of molesters within occupation i

Let W be the proportion of each occupation in terms of the general population, i.e.

W = (W1,W2,...Wn)
Wi = % of general population in occupation i

Obviously

\sigma{i}(Wi) = 100%

Now, the % of molesters in the general population is

<X> = X.W = \sigma{i}(Xi.Wi)

i.e., it is the weighted average of Xi's weighted by Wi's.

Now, let Xp be the proportion of priests that are molesters and Wp be the proportion of priests in the general population.

Now, suppose Xp is higher than Xi for any other single occupation. Then

Xp > Xi \for_all i, i<>p .... (1)

or

Xp - Xi > 0 \for_all i, i<>p

Let's call (Xp - Xi) delta(i). Therefore

delta(i) > 0 \for_all i, i<>p

Now, we know that the proportion of priests that are molesters is the same as that of the general population; i.e.

Xp = <X> .... (2)

But, we know that

<X> = \sigma{i}(Xi.Wi)
= \sigma{i}((Xp - (Xp - Xi)).Wi)
= \sigma{i}(Xp.Wi - delta(i).Wi)
= Xp.\sigma{i}(Wi) - \sigma{i}(delta(i).Wi)
= Xp.(100% ) - \sigma{i}(delta(i).Wi)
= Xp - \sigma{i}(delta(i).Wi)
= <X> - \sigma{i}(delta(i).Wi)

Therefore

\sigma{i}(delta(i).Wi) = 0

But we know that delta(i) is positive for all i<>p and Wi is positive for all i†. Therefore, each term in the summation above is positive (except for i=p). Therefore the summation above is positive.

But we have just shown that the summation is zero. We have a contradiction. Therefore, one of assumptions (1) or (2) must be false. But we know (2) is true. Therefore, (1) must be false.

---
† I am assuming that no occupation is "defunct"; i.e. Wi <> 0 \for_all i
---

Cheers,

LH

EDIT: I shouldn't have had to go through all this trouble. It's common sense that the maximum value for a population will equal the average value only when all values in the population are identical.

e.g. avg(1,2,3) = 2 and max(1,2,3) = 3
but
avg(2,2,2) = 2 and max(2,2,2) = 2.

Originally posted by David C
[b]As to the occupation bit, the fact that the % of priest-molesters is the same as that of the general population is sufficient to prove that priests do [b]not have a higher % of molesters than any other occupation. This is elementary mathematics.[/b]

I'm no mathemetician, but even I can see this is false: The 'rest of the general population' is also not a single occupation. Please address the question.[/b]

Actually, Dave, he's correct about the math part.

Let's say that everyone has one and only one occupation for simplicity.
Now consider a subdivision of the population into priests (p) and non-priests (n).

It follows then that the number of people that are molesters (M) is equal to the sum of the number of people that molesters of each occupation.

So M = Mp + Mn. Here Mp means "molesters that are priests" and Mn means "molesters that are not priests." (Mp and Mn do not mean M*p or M*n).

To get the percentage in the population, divide by pop.

(M/pop) = (Mp + Mn)/pop= (Mp/p)*(p/pop) + (Mn/n)*(n/pop)


In terms of percentage:

% molesters in population = (% priests that are molesters * %priests in population) + (% non-priests that are molesters * %non-priests in population)

So if the % molesters in population = 2%
and % priests that are molesters = 2%
then

2% = ( 2% )*( % priests in pop) + (% non-priests that are mol's)*(%non-p's in pop)

Given this we now that %non-priest molesters must also be 2% since if it were higher then the average in the population would be higher and if it were lower than 2% the average would be lower.

So the % of non-priests that are molesters = 2%

==> the % priests cannot be larger than the % of every other occupation.

There are three possibilities.

1) There are some non-priest occupations that are > than 2%.
2) All non-priests % = 2%
3) There are only priests in the population

Let's dismiss (3) as uninteresting.

In (2), the % of priests that are molesters is not greater than all the other occupation-molesters because they are all equal (2😵

Now (1). If all of the non-priest occupations are less than 2% molester than the average of non-priest molesters must be less than 2%. This cannot be. So it must be the case that if any non-priest occupation is less than 2% molester, then at least one non-priest occupation is more than 2% molester. Therefore % priest molesters is not greater than all the of the occupation-molesters because there is at least one occupation-molester % that is greater.

Gotta run fast so I can't double check my math. Appreciate any corrections to typos or method, though I am positive the conclusion is correct.

Originally posted by telerion
Actually, Dave, he's correct about the math part.

Let's say that everyone has one and only one occupation for simplicity.
Now consider a subdivision of the population into priests (p) and non-priests (n).

It follows then that the number of people that are molesters (M) is equal to the sum of the number of people that molesters of each occupation. ...[text shortened]... Appreciate any corrections to typos or method, though I am positive the conclusion is correct.

Three cheers for logic! The question now is why do some religious folk appeal to it when it helps their case, and ignore it when it hurts their case?

Originally posted by telerion
Actually, Dave, he's correct about the math part.

Let's say that everyone has one and only one occupation for simplicity.
Now consider a subdivision of the population into priests (p) and non-priests (n).

It follows then that the number of people that are molesters (M) is equal to the sum of the number of people that molesters of each occupation. ...[text shortened]... Appreciate any corrections to typos or method, though I am positive the conclusion is correct.

This proof is simpler than mine (though mathematically equivalent). Thanks tel.

Cheers,

LH