If a person watches the news coverage, of Ukraine v Russia, are they contributing to the war between Ukraine and Russia?

[henry quirk]

You're not going to make them free.

I hear ya, and you're probably right...even so, I think I'll keep at it a while longer.

[trokanmariel]

What's The Symmetry?

The symmetry, is me not telling somebody that it's wrong to go to war, because that somebody is identical to everybody else. It's also somebody not telling me that I deserve a house for free, because I am identical to everybody else.

The metaphysical force, that judges people along the lines of being part of the war between Ukraine and Russia by watching the war on TV; they have a choice, between The Symmetry judgement and the symmetry judgement, the former being their own version of unobvious metaphysics and the latter being their own version of obvious metaphysics

How are you, or anyone, identical to everyone else?

What's an unobvious and obvious metaphysic?

I have to eat food, which makes me identical to everyone else. Politics is determined by food, and because academia is about politics, and academia is merit, it's logical to account food consumption for the merit of tying everyone together.

With regards to metaphysics:
in the context, of the topic, about watching a war being part of a war, the obvious metaphysic is the accountability of the judgement being connected to people's freedom from the TV box.

[RCSaunders]

You're not going to make them free.

I hear ya, and you're probably right...even so, I think I'll keep at it a while longer.

Well, I'm not trying to discourage you. If it's what you choose to do, and I thought it was possible, I'd only wish you success.

Just so you know what you are up against, here is a list of objectives that must be met to make the US a free country. (It's not my list, but someone else's with the same objective.)

To Restore American Freedom

• Eliminate all government interference or regulation of any business or any aspect of the economy.

• Elimination of all government owned property.

• Eliminate all government welfare and subsidies.

• Abolish all taxes.

• Eliminate government fiat money.

• Eliminate all foreign aid.

• Eliminate all government meddling in foreign affairs.

• Abolish any and all state involvement in education.

• Eliminate government funded science.

• Reduce the department of defense to an as needed agency with no standing military.

• The elimination of all bureaucracies including:

BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives--Justice)
BATTT (Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade--Treasury)
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration)
DOC (Department of Commerce)
DOD (Department of De fence)
DOE (Department of Energy)
DOI (Department of the Interior)
DOL (Department of Labor)
DOT (Department of Transportation)
ED (US department of education)
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
HHS (Health and Human Services)
ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission)
EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)
FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
FTC (Federal Trade Commission)
HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development)
IRS (Internal Revenue Service)
ITA (International Trade Administration)
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)
NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy)
OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration)
SBA (Small Business Administration)
SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)
TSA (Transportation Security Authority)
USDA (Department of Agriculture)

looks like you have your work cut out for you. Good luck, my friend!

[henry quirk]

I have to eat food, which makes me identical to everyone else. Politics is determined by food, and because academia is about politics, and academia is merit, it's logical to account food consumption for the merit of tying everyone together.

Well, that's one way of lookin' at it.

[henry quirk]

Just so you know what you are up against

Oh, I know what I'm up against.

looks like you have your work cut out for you.

Same as it always was.

[trokanmariel]

I have to eat food, which makes me identical to everyone else. Politics is determined by food, and because academia is about politics, and academia is merit, it's logical to account food consumption for the merit of tying everyone together.

Well, that's one way of lookin' at it.

Do you agree with the perspective?

[henry quirk]

I have to eat food, which makes me identical to everyone else. Politics is determined by food, and because academia is about politics, and academia is merit, it's logical to account food consumption for the merit of tying everyone together.

Well, that's one way of lookin' at it.

Do you agree with the perspective?

No, similarity is not sameness and food is just one factor among many on the table.

[trokanmariel]

Well, that's one way of lookin' at it.

Do you agree with the perspective?

No, similarity is not sameness and food is just one factor among many on the table.

How do you calculate the judgement, that it's an issue of similarity and not sameness?

[henry quirk]

Do you agree with the perspective?

No, similarity is not sameness and food is just one factor among many on the table.

How do you calculate the judgement, that it's an issue of similarity and not sameness?

Well, are you and me the same, or do our differences overshadow our similarities?

[trokanmariel]

No, similarity is not sameness and food is just one factor among many on the table.

How do you calculate the judgement, that it's an issue of similarity and not sameness?

Well, are you and me the same, or do our differences overshadow our similarities?

We apply identically, to the identity and structure of memes. So, if we both ask CNN to air that atoms could want nations to exist, as a way to prevent the war between Russia and the Ukraine, the result of CNN's reaction would be the same. Meme culture would rescind us of our differences, even though the data of atoms wanting nations to exist is a difference.

[henry quirk]

if we both ask CNN to air that atoms could want nations to exist as a way to prevent the war between Russia and the Ukraine, the result of CNN's reaction would be the same.

Okay, I'm goin' out on a limb and guessin' when you say atoms you're talkin' about individuals, individual persons, and not actual atoms.

If so: you've proven we're not the same: I, for example, would never even consider goin' to CNN, or any other such organization, for anything. And, I do not believe nations (in the conventional sense) stop wars.

As for CNN's reaction, to just about anything, it would be to shape thinkin' not inform it.

[trokanmariel]

if we both ask CNN to air that atoms could want nations to exist as a way to prevent the war between Russia and the Ukraine, the result of CNN's reaction would be the same.

Okay, I'm goin' out on a limb and guessin' when you say atoms you're talkin' about individuals, individual persons, and not actual atoms.

If so: you've proven we're not the same: I, for example, would never even consider goin' to CNN, or any other such organization, for anything. And, I do not believe nations (in the conventional sense) stop wars.

As for CNN's reaction, to just about anything, it would be to shape thinkin' not inform it.

No, I mean atoms as actual atoms.

What's the difference, between shaping thinking and informing thinking?

[henry quirk]

No, I mean atoms as actual atoms.

I wasn't aware atoms had wants, or wanted.

What's the difference, between **shaping thinking and *informing thinking?

*Offering all available facts, as best you can, without revision, editing, skew, or narrative.

**Offering, purposefully, only certain revised, edited, or skewed facts arranged within a narrative.

[trokanmariel]

No, I mean atoms as actual atoms.

I wasn't aware atoms had wants, or wanted.

What's the difference, between **shaping thinking and *informing thinking?

*Offering all available facts, as best you can, without revision, editing, skew, or narrative.

**Offering, purposefully, only certain revised, edited, or skewed facts arranged within a narrative.

In regards to the first response, about atoms:
You connect the dots long enough, and recognise reality's dependency on language, that the dots of atoms might as well be in on it. From another perspective, the question is the means, irrespective of the value of the inner of the question. I can replace atoms with outer space, and the unit of meaning of outer space relative to atoms is the same.

In terms of the second issue, about shaping and informing; news media is inherently the result of exaggeration. The discovery, however, is that the blankness of attacking news media for the responsibility of exaggeration is balanced out by news media being a universal master.

News networks have the freedom, to use. Individual people can't, without being attached to the reality of condescension, but, because news networks are needed by the logic of trade, trade being an innate condition of humanity, the networks have the freedom to escape the condescension angle.

[henry quirk]

You connect the dots long enough, and recognise reality's dependency on language, that the dots of atoms might as well be in on it. From another perspective, the question is the means, irrespective of the value of the inner of the question. I can replace atoms with outer space, and the unit of meaning of outer space relative to atoms is the same.

I don't understand, so: I won't comment.

In terms of the second issue, about shaping and informing; news media is inherently the result of exaggeration. The discovery, however, is that the blankness of attacking news media for the responsibility of exaggeration is balanced out by news media being a universal master.

News networks have the freedom, to use. Individual people can't, without being attached to the reality of condescension, but, because news networks are needed by the logic of trade, trade being an innate condition of humanity, the networks have the freedom to escape the condescension angle.

This power they have is borrowed, not inherent. Formal media does what it does cuz folks pay attention to it, or take what's offered on face value.

More bluntly: if you don't pay attention to the propagandist, he ain't got nuthin'