Life In 19x19

In most of the world, actually, juridical issues are not subject to direct political interference, but instead are resolved by rule of law and so on. It works pretty well.

jts wrote:In most of the world, actually, juridical issues are not subject to direct political interference, but instead are resolved by rule of law and so on. It works pretty well.

This is awesome, but I think it's still wrong. We're not discussing the finer points of the application of Italian law, but the general issues raised by the case.

What I'd suggest is that the TOS should really be something like "discussion of religious, sexual, partisan or ideological topics...". That's fuzzier, but more in line with the idea behind the prohibition. We don't want massive threads where we yell at each other over Obama and Romney, but the forum won't go to hell in a handbasket because Topazg talked about risk assessment.

tchan001 wrote:You're all guilty of discussing controversial subjects on L19

2. Controversy
Religious, political, and sexual topics are not allowed. Keep debates civil, and respect that everyone does not share the same view as you do. "Baiting” people by writing anything controversial is not allowed. If the debate becomes too heated or the thread just goes out of control, it will be locked or deleted if the content is found to be lacking or distasteful.

If you are a moderator please state so. If someone is baiting please inform us who is and where. And if something is political please point it out. For sure the observation that Saddam Hussein did not have Massive Destruction Weapons is not political, not even in election time.

edit: well, that you are a moderator I should have concluded from the green color in your name. IMO this debate is very civil, respectfull and unheated.

While I do agree that the topic's name is a controversial view on the subject, I think discussion has been civil, and almost apolitical except for cyclops' berlusconi post. I'd just edit that out, and the rest fits the TOS, no?

Phelan wrote:...and almost apolitical except for cyclops' berlusconi post.

Even here, I would disagree. Cyclops is informing us about the Italian legal system. There are certainly countries where decisions about indictments, convictions and acquittals are decided in advance by a political party, but Italy isn't quite one of them. The fact that Berlusconi had a political career is no more relevant than Gary Glitter's career in music. If legal norms in Italy are that Berlusconi's sentence will almost certainly be overturned on appeal, that's interesting to me. Less derailment and more analysis of Italian jurisprudence, please.

Phelan wrote:While I do agree that the topic's name is a controversial view on the subject, I think discussion has been civil, and almost apolitical except for cyclops' berlusconi post. I'd just edit that out, and the rest fits the TOS, no?

You mean the whole post or only the Berlusconi part?

cyclops wrote:

Phelan wrote:While I do agree that the topic's name is a controversial view on the subject, I think discussion has been civil, and almost apolitical except for cyclops' berlusconi post. I'd just edit that out, and the rest fits the TOS, no?

You mean the whole post or only the Berlusconi part?

I think the whole post is political, actually. But the Berlusconi part seemed the most like a political jab.

Phelan wrote:

cyclops wrote:

Phelan wrote:While I do agree that the topic's name is a controversial view on the subject, I think discussion has been civil, and almost apolitical except for cyclops' berlusconi post. I'd just edit that out, and the rest fits the TOS, no?

You mean the whole post or only the Berlusconi part?

I think the whole post is political, actually. But the Berlusconi part seemed the most like a political jab.

I edited Berlusconi out on your request. Let's hope he will face justice.
For the rest of my post I don't understand how you can deem the whole thread apolitical apart only from my post.
Something like saying "soldiers should be exemped from persecution" is not a political statement but observing "soldiers are to be held responsible for war crimes" is political. These are opposite sides of the same coin. Of course I don't want to imply these italian scientist are war criminals. In fact I am in doubt about how guilty they are and I trust Italy ( and Europe ) to reach the right verdict. But to me it seems the case should be judged sincerely.

You're right that it might be a more subtle distinction than I am making it out to be. That's why I usually don't like to discuss subjects that relate closely to politics, it's hard to make the distinction sometimes.

Thanks for considering my point of view, though.