Discussion about this post

User's avatar
badumtisss's avatar

Reading this article sounded better than the idea of watching the broadcast itself. I felt the excitement, and the topic you were trying to explain was very clear.

Actually restrictions have controversial impact on people. If you ban anything or tell them it is not allowed to do something, it will hit back. I will give a simple example: througout these 1.5 years I preferred to stay at home to avoid the virus. I handled the situation well, but once the government announced that there will be a curfew for several weeks, I felt desperate. I was already staying at home by my own will, but to be restricted by a power made me feel like that.

So if you ban something, people will always tend to act its opposite. The example I gave was for the benefit of society, therefore we can exclude it (I gave this example to prove that our mind is always against restrictions, its in our nature). If you try to ban or regulate something against society and restrict their economical freedom, society would fight back. Thereby, if you ban something, know that people will always tend to surpass your ban and it is almost impossible to avoid it.

Moreover, the description you gave for international agreements was very proper. It is not possible for houndreds of different cultures and governments to agree on something, as you mentioned it does not even happen in humanistical level. Even if they do, it would take too much time to setup the order.

I enjoyed reading the article, and I think you did a great job explaining it both here and on TV. Thanks!

Expand full comment
Taha Birşen's avatar

It was a very different article, I still couldn't get over it. I felt really informed, I'm waiting for the continuation of these articles, Jason

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts