>>11698469
>Yeah typo's happen
In math typos can create errors in orders of magnitude. It is important to be accurate.
>There are a number of limitations on the data sources available to us.
So we work with what we have. Simple as that.
>which may have well been the intention behind the typos
I doubt it.
>Did you miss the part where i applied the same 16% from the sample group in the report to the total number of reported cases over 60 years.
Nope. I have an idea why you picked 60 years (bottom of an image that read 1950 through 2010). You conflated that with the data set from the Royal Commission's work…
> Now i don't exactly see why you reduced the timeframe to 35 years as the report collected cases from 1970 and onward.
The report in question clearly states:
> Other Data Sources:
>“Catholic Church authorities provided information about claims of child sexual abuse they received between 1 January 1980 and 28 February 2015 (the Catholic Church claims data). Of the 201 Catholic Church authorities surveyed, 92 authorities (46 per cent) reported having received one or more claims of child sexual abuse. Overall, 4,444 claimants alleged incidents of child sexual abuse in 4,756 reported claims to Catholic Church authorities.”
>Explain that then dimwit . how do you figure that 2.489 is 61% of the total of 15.249
It's not Mr. Retarded Magic Math. I explained this here:
>>11683835
>Next, 2,489 is 61.8% of 4,029
>61.8% of 15,249 is 9,424 (rounding to whole numbers)
>In other words, IF the entire lot of 15,249 had been interviewed, it is likely that 9,424 would have occurred in Catholic institutions.
Try as you might to twist this, but I'll explain this one more time for the slow folk.
Out of 4,029 interviewed people, 2,489 said it was connected to the Catholic Church. That is 61.8% of the interviewed data set. Again, (I'll repeat) by extrapolation, IF the entire group of 15,249 people would have been interviewed, it is likely that 9,424 (an equivalent percentage) would have said it was connected to the Catholic Church.
> But while you nitpick over 0.25%
Crikey! Still wrong! It's 2.31%! Hopeless.
In the end, I take it that you think 2.31% of all child sexual abuse attributed DIRECTLY to the Catholic Church is a small number, hence the reason you drag ever other demographic into this. FOCUS! The discussion is about the Catholic Church's role in the child sexual abuse! While I'm not ignoring any of the other 97.69% committed by "others", I'm certainly not the one doing everything he can to deflect away from the Catholic Church and say "But look over here!"
I'll pray for you. Now pay attention and get your shit together. You math lesson is over today.