1. People who live in the Congo may consciously choose not to become involved in Candian politics. It is absurd to think that is political.
2. You wrote: Your conflation of passive inaction with an active choice to refrain from certain action is absurd.
That is only meaningful as a circular definitio0n. Choosing not to act differs from an inability to act. Why? How would you define the difference between the action of not acting and the action of not acting, because of not making a choice to act?
> How would you define the difference between the action of not acting and the action of not acting, because of not making a choice to act?
I wouldn't, because not making a choice to act in a particular way is very different from making a choice to avoid as policy acting in that way, or, as was at issue upthread, “Taking a stance to not” act in a particular way. Taking a stance is (for this subject matter, at least) political. Inaction on its own is not.
2. You wrote: Your conflation of passive inaction with an active choice to refrain from certain action is absurd.
That is only meaningful as a circular definitio0n. Choosing not to act differs from an inability to act. Why? How would you define the difference between the action of not acting and the action of not acting, because of not making a choice to act?