I wish I could understand what you mean by this. Your brain definitely does think in a funny way, we frequently miss each other's meaning.
Discussion
But I can gather that you (probably) think aggression does not exist, is just a weak person's claim of victimhood and refusal to take responsibility.
I see aggression as a bear, and play the strategy that I simply can't outrun it.
So what do you do instead if run? I shoot it.
No
Why not shoot it?
The context of the bear is hypothetical. So if the bear is math, then guns don't work. If the bear is (which is assuming worst case scenario) an entity more powerful than me, then aggression is a failure strategy.
Is the bear chasing you, or is it just minding its business? I thought it was chasing you for some reason lol
As a software developer, we tend to only consider worst case scenarios.
So the bear is already eating at you and you just don't do anything because you pretend it's inevitable? Weak.
If you want to keep guessing that's fine. 20 questions is fun, but there is something you are not considering in my strategy.
I also want to point out that it is not my intent to keep the strategy a secret. I apologize, but you never asked.
I would be interested to hear it. I was just too busy trying to understand your strategy amongst all your incoherent misuse of the term "aggression" to know what to ask.
After we defined the hypothetical bear as an aggressor in a worst scenario using a non aggressive strategy, I don't have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you.
Ok, and if you try to hurt me in so doing, I shoot you and I shoot the bear after he eats you, and you can go fuck yourself.
If instead you don't try to hurt me but merely keep running, I keep running fast enough to stay away from the bear while I gather my strength/better positioning, and then I shoot the fucking bear, with math. I'm not gonna let this thing get me without a fight. That's not aggression. That's defense. Anything else is pathetic.
Your strategy might be a good temporary strategy while you gain enough strength to even do anything, a form of self defense. To just assume it cannot be any other way though, that is not logically justified. A government bitcoin treasury and mining operation is not an all powerful god. And Natural Law is not some excuse to avoid reality. Your assumptions are.
The context of the bear is hypothetical. So if the bear is math, then guns don't work. If the bear is (which is assuming worst case scenario) an entity more powerful than me, then aggression is a failure strategy.
The bear need not remain stronger than me and those with whom I contract for defense, as the situation progresses. I win that game. And I am working to create that game, a set of institutions and social layer that supports such resolution of conflicts in favor of the firstcomer to the item owned (this is equivalent to resolving conflicts against the aggressor). I find your lack of sovereignty disturbing so I'm done with this conversation for now. GN.
Before I forget, let me commit a pull request in that game you are working on. It's in a form of a checklist. I got it from a book upon request.
1. Are we solidly in our own open hearts? Do we feel unconditional love for the person with whom we are communicating?
2. Are we being completely honest?
3. Are we sure this is what we think and what we want to say?
4. Are we sure we are responding to what the other actually thinks and what he/she has actually said?
5. Are we clear of any hint of wanting to make an impression or to control or persuade the other person?
6. Are we truly listening to the other person?
7. Are we clear of energies such as accusation or complaint?
8. Is the other person completely safe with us?
9. Have we aimed our communication directly at the heart of where the other person is coming from? Does our communication show total respect?
10. Are we remaining in our hearts, even when catalyst strikes in the midst of conversation?