But whether I'm not getting, there's a big difference between letting people do something for themselves and saying, men should be dangerous. By dangerous, that implies I should be ready to threaten someone, to hurt somebody. No, you should be capable of it, but that doesn't mean you should use it. There's nothing to you, otherwise. If you're not a formidable force, there's no morality in your self-control. If you're incapable of violence, not being violent isn't a virtue. People who teach martial arts know this full well, right? If you learn a martial art, you learn to be dangerous, but simultaneously you learn to control it. Both of those come together. And the combination of that capacity for danger and the capacity for control is what brings about the virtue. Otherwise, you confuse weakness with moral virtue. I'm harmless, therefore I'm good. It's like, no, that isn't how it works. That isn't how it works at all. If you're harmless, you're just weak. And if you're weak, you're not going to be good. You can't be because it takes strength to be good. It's very difficult to be good.