Latvian sayings

Originally posted by @fmf
I think the Australian sample was pretty scientifically done and probably represents the 'western' Christian-oriented countries pretty well. I offered the case study for the purposes of the discussion. If you, however, have had your pride bruised, and you think your "nearly exclusively" was indeed the correct expression to use and not just a bit of careless hyp ...[text shortened]... , that's all. The topic is a seriously ugly one and deserves to be approached with some decorum.

I was simply asking questions. Don’t know why you were reading so much into them. It’s standard practice (and common courtesy) in our community to provide links when you cite a study or an article. I wouldn’t have had any questions had you done so.

Thanks.

Originally posted by @fmf
Why don't you look into it at the link I provided?

I saw the link after I posted that query.

Originally posted by @romans1009
It’s interesting that the statistics you cited referred to abuse in religious institutions, but not a single reference was made to synagogues or mosques.

Synagogues or mosques are "religious institutions".

Originally posted by @romans1009
Are you referring to the statistics you cited from the Australian Royal Commission? How many countries did their data cover? Just Australia, or other countries as well? What year or years did their data cover?

Got a link to the stats you cited?

So, do you believe 61-62% warrants your use of the expression “nearly exclusively”?

Originally posted by @fmf
I think the Australian sample was pretty scientifically done and probably represents the 'western' Christian-oriented countries pretty well. I offered the case study for the purposes of the discussion. If you, however, have had your pride bruised, and you think your "nearly exclusively" was indeed the correct expression to use and not just a bit of careless hyp ...[text shortened]... , that's all. The topic is a seriously ugly one and deserves to be approached with some decorum.

It appears the data only pertains to religious institutions in Australia. Could you say why you think the data “represents the ‘western’ Christian-oriented countries?”

Originally posted by @fmf
Synagogues or mosques are "religious institutions".

Yes, but were they included in the data? Do you know how many synagogues and mosques are in Australia?

Originally posted by @romans1009
Yes, but were they included in the data? Do you know how many synagogues and mosques are in Australia?

Why don't you look into it at the link I provided?

Originally posted by @fmf
So, do you believe 61-62% warrants your use of the expression “nearly exclusively”?

I was referring to the United States of America, the country where I live and where sexual abuse by priests received widespread media coverage. The figures you cited appear to pertain only to Australia based on what I read in the report. I’m not familiar with the situation in Australia as most of the sexual abuse allegations that occurred by religious people as reported in the American media pertained to Catholic priests in America.

Originally posted by @romans1009
It appears the data only pertains to religious institutions in Australia. Could you say why you think the data “represents the ‘western’ Christian-oriented countries?”

Because that's what Australia is.

Originally posted by @fmf
Why don't you look into it at the link I provided?

I did. Once I determined the report appeared to only cover religious institutions in Australia, I lost interest.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I was referring to the United States of America, the country where I live and where sexual abuse by priests received widespread media coverage. The figures you cited appear to pertain only to Australia based on what I read in the report. I’m not familiar with the situation in Australia as most of the sexual abuse allegations that occurred by religious people as reported in the American media pertained to Catholic priests in America.

If you think your "nearly exclusively" was indeed the correct expression to use with regard to the U.S. ~ and not just a bit of careless hyperbole ~ then, by all means, feel free to back it up. If you want to that is; it doesn't really matter if you are not motivated to do so.

Originally posted by @fmf
Because that's what Australia is.

You got caught trying to pass off a report based on a single country as being more comprehensive than it is.

Having been called out on your sloppy presentation, you’re now pool whizzing in embarrassment.

Have a nice evening.

Originally posted by @romans1009
You got caught trying to pass off a report based on a single country as being more comprehensive than it is.

This is my post from page 1:

As an indication of the extent and institutional breakdown of this issue, the Australian royal commission recently found, after a long and exhaustive inquiry, that of those abused in a religious institution, 61.4% were in Catholic institutions, and 38.6% were in other Christian institutions, including 14.8% Anglican, 7.2% Salvation Army and the rest in various denominations. Catholics comprise about 50% of all Christians worldwide. So, while sex abuse scandals are certainly not "exclusively" a Catholic problem, they are 'overrepresented' in that denomination, as it were.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Having been called out on your sloppy presentation, you’re now pool whizzing in embarrassment.

The findings from Australia are very interesting - as well as disturbing. Like I said, this topic is a serious and ugly one and deserves to be approached with some some non-infantile decorum.

Originally posted by @fmf
This is my post from page 1:

As an indication of the extent and institutional breakdown of this issue, the Australian royal commission recently found, after a long and exhaustive inquiry, that of those abused in a religious institution, 61.4% were in Catholic institutions, and 38.6% were in other Christian institutions, including 14.8% Anglican, 7.2% Salvati ...[text shortened]... t "exclusively" a Catholic problem, they are 'overrepresented' in that denomination, as it were.

And you then extrapolated that 62 percent as though it pertained to more than just Australia. You later tried to claim the report covered more than Australia.

Your presentation was intellectually sloppy, poorly researched, sensationalistic and, quite frankly, an embarrassment to our community.

I was more than happy to invest five minutes to expose it as the irrelevant and misleading fluff that it is.

Good day, sir!