However, the bagatelle not lead anywhere. And from “nowhere” we’re going to be too long, for too many years, even in terms of contrast to gambling. Software or no software.
A contrast to gambling that, in the branch that covers taking charge of pathological tendencies, has since become a real market with researchers offering magic solutions, organizations profit and “nonprofit” that ask for money, operators are competing resources and do not save low shots on the eve of each law of stability.
On end of her letter she writes: “… we expect a deeper collaboration with those who lead these battles, quick to stigmatize certain behaviors together, to take the side of the bands most socially vulnerable”.
I fully share his invitation and I think the editors of Life, and I thank him because he has always guaranteed freedom of deployment and independent judgment, you think like me.
We’re the facts. Why is the facts that should be developed debate and civic partnerships that she hopes.
It lacks a search non-partisan on socio-economic health of chance . This is not a precondition for our critical action, but for a real and coherent institutional action.
Here’s a fact: in Italy there is today a ‘truly independent institution, actually third, really not financed directly or through industry of gambling or owned by law or through from lobbyna good causes. We need an institution I mean that with a statutory mandate consistent with the ethical and legal principles of our legal system and on the basis of scientific criteria (and not political, as it is the Observatory on the game) analyze the structure and size of gambling in Italy, the people to whom this game is targeted and the impact that this interaction between structure-environment-people have about relationships, micro and macroeconomics, short on everything with a deadline a little ‘generic might call “the social”.
The question that I laid in my article, but this software, no matter who designed it, has already admitted the designed, it can not be yet another Trojan horse to avoid start down this road? My answer is: yes, of course it is. Beyond all the good intentions in the world.
A software is not a “third isituzione”, but it could easily give the impression to act in their place.
Upstream an institution should be the third developed a real debate on tools, resources, policies, not take anything for granted. Because, to paraphrase Prezzolini, everything in Italy is granted, except what it should be. And on the subject of chance too many things are taken for granted. To continue or not to be such depends on us, from you, from me, from everyone.
Have you ever seen a surgeon operate haphazardly before prescribing serious and extensive diagnostic tests on the patient? Why then the Italian state should behave well in terms of appropriations million EUR for the therapy of chance? If the ill-Italy is serious, then it is even more urgent the need for reliable data and indicators on its pathology. Data, analysis, research, no slides or numbers at random, or worse, recycled with the “copy and paste”. Do not you think? It ‘a matter of common institutional sense, even before logic.
Question from the city: because a government would have to allocate EUR millions to fund things maybe laudable, maybe funny, maybe pleasant, maybe Also useful but honestly have so much the air of ersatz than the heart of the story we call “chance”?
At this rate, they do not progress. It should? Is not this the common point, the “between”, as would the good Martin Buber, between an “I” and “you”, within which and only in which you can collaboration and dialogue?
I think it should be stopped altogether. Go stop this unnecessary demand for resources. Gamblers, pathological or not, can not become a security blanket of a welfare model much, too politicized and thus arrived at the fruit if not, at least at the dessert.
No comments:
Post a Comment