"An injury that Madame should not 'cause she comes from the world of show, and her performances are memorable a bare chest on stage at the Teatro Manzoni (Milano), where Silvio knew her and fell in love. "
Felt, Available (Veronica Lario's on the injury to the buzzing around the trash husband).
" Veronica Lario another man " Free
" Until 'moralists speculate on what' is happening under the covers of others, we pry (turandocelo) under them."
Felt, the newspaper said.
" But if that person who throws the allegations in the public role of director of a major newspaper, has committed acts that harm other people's private family, which were recorded under sentence of conviction by a court, It follows that the inferences he draws against Prime Minister Berlusconi as a public man are wrong. In fact, to admit they were right, we should also admit that even the director of the Future that the spear is not entitled to direct a newspaper that does sermons moral. But if we admit that this director is not entitled to make these sermons, the criticism that he does not have any value. They are paper.
theorem seems unobjectionable. "
Francesco Forte, the newspaper said.
Ok. So. There 's a theorem in half (if ... then ). The thing' interesting. Let's put it in symbols.
We define: X
and 'a subject throwing an accusation: Lario, Boffo, LaRepubblica
F and 'the fact or conduct impeached by X : immorality', betrayal, surrounded by rubbish, applications for LaRepubblica.
Y and 'the person subject to prosecution F : Berlusconi.
and y 'all of those who defend Y : Felt etc.
F (Y) = 1 means it 's true that Y committed F .
F (Y) = 0 means that 's true that Y committed F . The main topic of
y in these recent years, 'summed up in this theorem:
Hypothesis:
- if a person X launches an indictment against an act or conduct F made by Y , that ': X suggests that F (Y) = 1
- if y response shows that F (X ) = 1, ie 'that X itself and' at fault F ,
Then:
the suggestion that X F (Y) = 1 and could be 'taken into consideration.
Mmm .. Comments:
- The fact F, put the spotlight on X it imputes to Y, and 'universally considered wrong, that is' immoral. By all, including y himself, who did not discuss the immorality ', anzi usa proprio questa immoralita' contro X .
- y cerca di difendere Y : ma non dimostra che F(Y) = 0, dimostra solo che anche F(X) = 1. La conclusione e' solo che entrambi X e Y sono colpevoli di F . F puo' benissimo valere 1 per X e Y allo stesso tempo, c'e' spazio per tutti all'inferno.
- La strategia di y is sent down by the words of Jesus' himself: "Who has not sinned cast the first stone." Who uses this argument to give strength to the theorem above forget that Jesus' in truth 'meant: ' It is true that F (Y) = 1, but as for any other person Z There is something wrong F ' so F' (Z) = 1 , Come, 'we, who are these sinners Z , forgive Y have done F ". Forgiveness was the key. There 's forgiveness for Y? Any admission of Y and promise not to ricommettere F think would help. However at the moment no, Y not 'forgiven.
- The relative importance of cases F (Y) = 1 or F (X) = 1 : Who cares if X committed F ? Who cares if Y committed F ? It depends on the influence of basin X and Y . If the basin of influence Y and 'more that of X, then F (Y) = 1 has worse consequences for F (X) = 1 . It 'good that the basins of influence will not remain passive, if they consider F really serious. For clarity, we now state and 'the influence of basin Y, while X are his intimates around or its readers. There 's a ratio of 10 million to one.
- Why ' y does not understand that F (X) = 1 does not imply F (Y) = 0 ? I think y know well. But the choice of professionally bold y to put themselves under those spotlights that illuminate the writing F (Y) = 1, which also F (X) = 1, necessarily will be 'followed a tangled debate, pungently about Y, X especially y , which dilute the energy and attention. The immorality 'of the F , independent X or Y , and his property' F (Y) = 1, rilevante per il grande bacino di influenza di Y , saranno dimenticate. L'opinione su y sara' sempre piu' polarizzata tra chi lo odia e chi lo ama, cosa che evidentemente non dispiace a y . X continuera' la sua esistenza con una macchia di fango sulla camicia ben visibile, il prezzo pagato per essere sceso nell'arena fangosa. Y manterra' il suo potere avendo superato uno scoglio in piu'.
La matematica non e' certo il linguaggio migliore per discutere di queste cose. Il senso di quello che voglio dire e' che le strategie seguite per discolparsi da chi e' subject to indictment, social and moral but not legal, often do not fit specifically. Indeed voluntarily seek, I believe, to divert attention from the specific. 'Cause we do not discuss the F , immorality' of those actions? a head of state must be under those lights? It 'really just a look through the peephole? And 'gossip or political sense? The politician must be honest? must be continually subject to audit not only on his work but also about his private life? And in this case, Berlusconi's private life does not come into play at all in his political work? he was not to sell the integrity 'of his family full of photos in newspapers before the election? We want a politician talk to us about his family? At the time of that election did not like comic books, but now is fine. Where 'the limit, the transition? We will do well with our in our time? And how we deal with what today is stronger than 'strong Catholics, the church, so basically I'm a fan?
0 comments:
Post a Comment