Moralists, place-communists, racists, deniers and rhetoricists from all over the country why don’t you make a silent mea culpa recognizing that Juventus is a social organization that represents a bad example of sports ethics?
You don’t have to admit it publicly, you don’t have to expose yourself, all you need is a dignified silence otherwise your membership card to the fundamentalist party (perhaps hypocrites) will be withdrawn. Doping, calciopoli, passport polices, false accounting, corporate crimes, market abuse, manipulation and tax crimes are the criminal contexts in which she found herself, directly or indirectly, doomed (although the offense is sometimes time-barred) and/or accused the Juventus club in the last 25 years.
Not only insiders (about whom we wrote here a few months ago) but also commentators, anchormen, bloggers, politicians, entrepreneurs and men from the world of finance, often even authoritative, who pontificate on everything in the country’s main media, from gourmet to religious monotheism, and who have also manifested themselves as fans over the years, could really play a decisive role in the creation of a culture of ethics (perhaps an exaggerated concept for a people who are sons of Guicciardini) and of legality, at least in sport.
But we know that support (and interests) often justifies the double standard. Just look at how their opinions change when it comes to ethics, values and legality and their football faith is not involved.
Ethics is based on the principles of right and wrong that influence human behavior. Some ethical standards are almost universal, such as the belief that killing is never justified, except for the most justifiable reasons (such as self-defense, for example). Other ethical standards are culturally based and vary according to what a particular culture considers right or wrong, such as with tax evasion.
The party of fundamentalists (perhaps hypocrites) has a fairly definite line in this regard that leaves no room for doubt. Unless we’re talking about Juventus.
Values, on the other hand, are the underlying, relatively permanent and deeply ingrained beliefs and attitudes that help determine people’s behavior. Values are the foundation for ethical systems (as, for example, in the Hippocratic oath doctors take to “first do no harm” to a patient), for legal systems (as in lawyers’ promises to abide by the law), for the world of sport (behaviours consistent with loyalty)
Also in this case the fundamentalist party (perhaps hypocrites) has a fairly defined and uncompromising line. Unless you’re thinking about Juventus.
Lastly, laws are rules of conduct formally recognized as binding or applied by the supervisory authorities. In our society, laws are based on ethical considerations and values. However, what is ethical may not always be legal and viceversa.
In this regard, I share a simple experience I had recently, which led me to ask myself some questions that have never been fully resolved.
I was in a public office where, for several days, I had been trying to assert a legitimate and justified claim of mine; every day I was told that my claim could not be satisfied promptly and that it was necessary to return the next day: thus, from day to day, more than a week had passed, without my rights being protected.
A bit tired, then, I decided to introduce myself as a professional in the sector; after a few seconds, I was told that the problem I had posed would be resolved in a few minutes.
Indeed, then, so it was.
This elementary fact, summarized in its essence, led me to question the meaning of the constitutional principle referred to in art. 3 of the Constitution, according to which we are all equal before the law: it is really possible to believe that we are all equal before the lawif not all of us are concretely equal?
More clearly, if in my place, in the matter examined, there had been a person who did not carry out my profession, how long would he have had to wait before being satisfied? Most likely, she would have waited even longer than me.
Two weights and two measures but not for the exponents of the fundamentalist party (perhaps hypocrites) who, also in this case, follow a very clear, rigorous and inflexible line. Unless it’s Juventus.
All this “paraustiello”, a Neapolitan term of Spanish derivation (from “para usted”) to indicate an underlying comparison, to invite the exponents of the fundamentalist party (perhaps hypocrites) to make a choice: o condemnedfollowing a logic consistently, with your opinions also Juventus or, if not, accept the sanctification of Licio Gelli and Duilio Poggiolini.