Do you agree? If no, why not?

[Anonymous]

"If you're not capable of violence, you're not peaceful, you're harmless."

Yes

No

[Agape93]

That's similar to a notion Jordan peterson said.

"If you’re harmless you’re not virtuous, you’re just harmless, you’re like a rabbit; a rabbit isn’t virtuous, it just can’t do anything except get eaten! That’s not virtuous. If you’re a monster, and you don’t act monstrously, then you’re virtuous."
That is what I agree with.

[jeemm]

Not being physically or mentally capable of violence doesn't mean the person is peaceful or harmless.

Imagine a hypothetical Hitler who was never a soldier but instead became a public speaker as soon as he could. He'd be able to cause a lot of harm. Also people have fought wars in the name of peace.

[NZGirl07]

To me this statement is talking about physical violence, which is only one way someone can be harmful. There are so many other ways to be harmful, including mental, emotional, and financial abuse. Also reputation destruction is another harmful thing. Violence is not the only way people can be harmful.

[anylolone]

That statement isn't talking only about physical violence.