this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
6 points (62.5% liked)

conservative

920 readers
1 users here now

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

  1. No racism or bigotry.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. No spam posting.

  4. Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  5. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

  6. No trolling.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] PizzaMan@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It matters because if "true christian" population is correlated with self reported christian population, which it should be, then self reported christian population should also be inversely correlated with drug addicition.

To break it down a little further:

  1. (n) "christians" = (n * x) true christians

  2. (n) "christians" = inverse (drug addicition)

Therefore:

  1. "true christians" = inverse (drug addicition)

Does that make sense?

[โ€“] 10A@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Yes, that does make sense. If the two are really uncorrelated, then it would appear some people are lying about their faith.