This text analyzes the complex relationship between resistance and adaptation, taking as its starting point Friedrich Heer's provocative claim that effective resistance requires a degree of adaptation. The author critiques this assertion, suggesting that the term "adaptation" can be misleading. While engaging an opponent requires shared ground—such as physical proximity or a common language—these are matters of practical necessity rather than true adaptation. The author warns that adopting an opponent's methods or "weapons" can be morally degrading and counterproductive, leading to the self-disqualification of the resister. Therefore, the central issue is not the quantity of adaptation, but its quality and nature. The text concludes that any adaptation must remain under conscious control and serve a justifiable purpose. Ultimately, the distinction between useful tactical adjustment and self-defeating compromise depends on whether the resister maintains their integrity while navigating the tactical requirements of the struggle.