You either did not understand or chose not to respond to what I said. Likewise in the case of cars, choosing which car would depend on the circumstance.
Volitional act is an act that you want to perform (i.e. it’s what you set as a goal.)
Non-volitional act is an act that you do not want to bring about but that nonetheless occurs as a consequence of what you want to bring about.
Non-volitional restraint, then, is any restraint that is a side-effect of volitional doing of some sort.
To restrain means to turn off some activity.
You can do so as a goal e.g. “I want to turn off some activity”.
Or it might be a consequence of you trying to do something else e.g. “I want to turn on something else”.
If you’re doing something inappropriate (e.g. eating junk food) you can either focus on that impulse in order to turn it off (volitional restraint) or you can focus on some other activity (e.g. doing your homework) and hope that this activity will squeeze your inappropriate impulse out (non-volitional restraint.)
Yes and that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are cars as opposed to something else (e.g. basketball players.)
Yes, but the point is that the two options of restraint cannot be examined as ideal types but are types of reactions to given situations in which case a particular option would suit best, but the situations must be specified (which in the case of restraint would include also things like characteristics of individuals needing restraint) before the correct answer is chosen.
How does that follow from the fact that they are both actions?
You are evading this question.
If you want to argue that the value of these two techniques is situation dependent, then fine. If you want to argue that their value is not binary good/bad but multifaceted pros/cons, then fine.
But how does any of that follow from the fact that they are actions?
You must take what I am saying in the context as well. It follows because we are wondering whether one form of restraint is better than another (which I understood to be engaging in a different activity from the restrained one which is not some form of rest/recuperation) or else restraint by engaging in some form of rest/recuperation (I am using the latter terms somewhat loosely because I wasn’t completely sure whether you were categorizing a decrease of momentum as rest or not but it seemed you were because of you use of the word room.) The way you had phrased this was a dichotomy between foregoing by doing or foregoing without doing. I didn’t feel the phrasing made sense to the implication because I feel that the engagement of volitional impulses towards rest are modes of doing for an individual. We discussed all this at length and I think in many regards we found our differences to lie within our word choices, though there was more covered certainly.
Now I am saying because these are both things we must do, if we are to volitionally restrain ourselves at all, they become alternatives. I do not see them as an either/or, as you suggested, because I do not understand the realm on which our volition engages with circumstances to be of that quality where only two options are posed, nor yet to I understand it to be a situation where any option the mind could land open is open. I have said that I think potentia lies within preceding circumstances including qualities. This is why I feel like particulars must be engaged upon questions of this kind, often the particulars are intimate, if an individual is determining private affairs, and as you pointed out information is also lacking which limits the human mind from being able to give an infallible account regarding what has yet to come.