First, Expatbrit. The 23,000+ number that SilentLambs refers to is for JWs WORLDWIDE. The victims may not be ALL JW children. Most JW molesters I knew about molested far more non-JW children. The issue is about victims, whemever they may be.
MOXY:
"amazing, im sorry. youre just not very good at it. this single paragraph contains so many errors i dont even want to touch it. just error piled on top of error...."
To state that a peragraph of mine is so riddled with errors that you do not want to touch it, is to say the least rather intellectually lazy, considering that it is a short paragraph. I will help you out here. Let's look at the problematic paragraph:
"So far about 10 Preists have been exposed as pedophiles. Let's assume that the problem among Catholics in the USA is 100 times worse, say 1,000 Preists ... for 62,000,000 Catholics. That means only 2/100ths of 1% of Catholics are Pedophiles (0.000016129). Whereas if we take 5,300 JW pedophiles for 930,000 JWs in the USA means just over 1/2% or 0.005698925."
Let's see what is the serious error:
So far about 10 Preists: Over the last 20 to 30 years far more than 10 preists in the USA have been found to be pedophiles. I was referring to more recent news events where the Diosese of Boston, Chicago, Miami, and San Diego have discussed asbout 10 Preists in the news. There are more, I am sure. Which leads to:
10 x 100 times worse = 1,000: I admit that I cannot establish that there are currently 1,000 USA Catholic Priests who are pedophiles. I used that figure to make sure I was CONSERVATIVE, which is a common practice in analysis ... it rules out comparative error.
" ... for 62,000,000 Catholics. That means only 2/100ths of 1% of Catholics are Pedophiles (0.000016129)." My error here was generalizing all USA Catholics. There are non-Clergy Catholics that are pedophiles, but I have no way of knowing that number.
WORLDWIDE there are over 1,000,000,000 Catholics. The 62,000,000 number is based on what is reported in 2000 for USA Catholics. I will concede that IF we knew the approximate number of all Catholic pedophiles in the USA, the percentages would be different, but I doubt any worse than the JW religion. The law of large numbers would play out well given the vast numbers of Catholics we are discussing. However, I suspect that there are more pedophiles in the JW religion per capita.
Whereas if we take 5,300 JW pedophiles for 930,000 JWs in the USA means just over 1/2% or 0.005698925. The over 23,000 that Silent lambs uses is worldwide. Based on a fairly extensive Poll I took last July, I was able to exreapolate over 5,300 JW pedophiles in the USA ... this is not hard to achieve, and the numbers are now proving more consistent given Silent Lambs learning of the worldwide number.
EVEN IF: My numbers for JW pedophiles is inflated some, and the Catholic numbers are much higher ... the point of the comparison is to show that relatively speaking, the Catholic problem does not dwarf the JW problem. Rather they are likely about the same, or the JW problem is worse.
The issue is that the Watchtower has no room to talk against the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore, the NBC Dateline program wouild be a significant blow to Watchtower, Inc.
So what again is your basis for my analysis be so seriously riddled with error that you cannot even address it?
Law of Large Numbers Revisited: Let's assume that the Catholic problem is equal to the JW problem. Take 62,000,000 USA Catholics x 0.0056 (slightly over 1/2%) and you get 347,200 Catholic pedophiles. For the USA as a whole, if we take 280,000,000 x 0.0056 and you get 1,568,000 pedophiles in the USA. This result is not provable at this time, but several anti-pedophile groups are compiling statistics, and the numbes are believed to be staggering.
[b]So, again, if I made a math error, point this out. If I made an analysis error, given the short prargraph, and you feel secure in your opinion that I am screwed up, then just show it, and don't hide behind excuses about how it is too much to tackle. For if you have greater expertise, that at a glance you can derermine great error, then share it ... if I am in error, I will admit it and I have done on other ocassions.
