You can't truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of great violence

To answer the question: no; because peace is so much more than the mere absence of war [or violence]. Peace is a positive condition. Example: I use a two-room argument with a shared wall and one door in that wall. One room is filled with light, a positive substance. The other room is in total darkness when the door is closed [it is then a "wall," itself]. But darkness is not a substance; it is the absence of any substance. Now, open the door, which condition of one room invades the other? Answer: light invades the dark room because of the substance issue. Dark does not invade light; only the reverse.

Render the light as peace, and peace, then, has substance, and is, therefore, an active participant in individual lives for good. Since there is nothing good in physical violence, it cannot be good.

One may think that one is merely violent by influence of another who is also violent, but, that is merely influence. The person influenced must decide to also be violent; there is not coercion, particularly when no physical force is applied. We decide to be peaceful, or not, on our own. Free will, not universal determinism.

If peace is absence of war, then yes, absence of war is peace.

If you're not capable of violence you're not peaceful. you're harmless. Important distinction.

I saw this posted recently, what say you all? Is it fair to call radical nonviolence as not peaceful?

No, it's not, whoever posted that is a violent person who wants to look down on us peaceful people.

I want to kick his ass.

Even peaceful people can be stirred into violence as your example shows.

Yes, that is correct.

Peace is the opposite of violence, it's in the other pole so if you look for peace you're actually trying to stay away from violence.

In contrast, harmlessness is the opposite of dangerousness or harmfulness. It comes to my mind a psycopath who is harmful, and the average person who is harmless (I guess).

One of my favorite quotes of all time: "Si vis pacem, para bellum." Translates to "If you want peace, prepare for war."

Side thing, this is a quote used in John Wick 3: Parabellum which is a great movie.

Violence is a choice. Even harmless people can take to violence.

Peace is the opposite of violence, it's in the other pole so if you look for peace you're actually trying to stay away from violence.

It's impossible to stay away from violence forever no matter one's initiative for peace because there are constantly evil, dangerous forces at work that threaten safety, freedom, and liberty. So to preserve peace, the guardian or enforcer of peace needs to have a counter-force of strength capable of violence to curb the evil violence.

I would call radical nonviolence peaceful.

But it's gray.

. . .

I'm imagining two karate masters,

One takes offense to petty actions, and violently retaliates,

The other takes offense only to the most extreme actions, and only retaliates then.

. . . Even common weak people 'could poke someone's eyes out, beat another to death with a rock.

Unless they've physically had their limbs removed, or are wearing some sort of shackles.

If radical nonviolence is a 'choice to be peaceful, and not a 'physical incapability, then I'd call such a person peaceful.

. . .

Hm, but then let me suppose a person who regardless of if they take offense or not, does not ever violently retaliate.

Emotionally incapable? Or is it a choice?

(Shrug)

'Situation is still peaceful.

. . .

Hm, an individual in solitary confinement is harmless/peaceful, by force,

Were they not imprisoned, they'd not be peaceful.

There is peace in the situation, though the individual is not peaceful.

. . .

What constitutes harm?

There are ways of working against others that doesn't require blood to be shed,

Destruction of culture, manipulation.

. . .

Angry person can still be peaceful, in their choices.

. . .

Angry prisoner in chains peaceful,

Angry prisoner without chains, violent.

Even harmless people can take to violence.

If a harmless person takes to violence, he's not harmless anymore.

it's impossible to stay away from violence forever no matter one's initiative for peace because there are constantly evil, dangerous forces at work that threaten safety, freedom, and liberty. So to preserve peace, the guardian or enforcer of peace needs to have a counter-force of strength capable of violence to curb the evil violence.

Surely. I think though there are harmless people in this fkn world and I'm not referring to people with Down Syndrome or something of that sort. They are usually women. Men in general are violent by nature.

Peace is a various word.

A temporary state of less activity and disturbance.

Or a state of non-war.

Though Ironically one might find moments of less activity and disturbance, during war.

A harmless man is not good man, a very very dangerous man who has that shit under control, civilized. These are the men that clean up the messes harmless men create.

You just said homeless men have their shit under control and therefore less messy.

Ya, that's what I said.

Is it because they use public toilets?

Ya, that's it.

Good shit control is essential for both a healthy mind and a healthy body.

Also cuts down on laundry and therefore helps save the Planet.

Are you saying it should be part of climate change to protect and save our planet

No.

The Planet doesn't need saving.

The Planet will carry on regardless until the Sun eventually runs out of steam and engulfs it.

All the other Planets keep whizzing around the Sun without the need for human shit.

So it is the Sun that needs saving from human shit.

Human shit will eventually need saving from the Sun.

Though I'm guessing that an alternative intelligence will have taken over by then, and will already have escaped.

Will give a whole new meaning to global warming.

Global warming is the same as baking in shit.

That's one way of looking at it.

That’s another way of looking at you.

Surely. I think though there are harmless people in this fkn world and I'm not referring to people with Down Syndrome or something of that sort. They are usually women. Men in general are violent by nature.

I don’t agree that the average male is violent. Men commit more violence than females, but I would like to see what data you have for saying men on average are violent in the normal course of their activities

Yes, numerous national and global statistics consistently show that 

men are more likely than women to perpetrate physical and lethal violence, such as homicide, aggravated assault, and sexual assault. 

However, research also indicates that women are as likely as men to use less severe forms of aggression, often described as relational or psychological, and may be more likely to be perpetrators in some specific contexts such as minor intimate partner conflict. 

Depends on what kind of peace.

The peace i think about has everything to do with being ruled and governed by Jesus.

A man of this kind of peace is not worried about tomorrow, nor are they breaking down in the middle of calamity.