Seeing Thorfinn become the man his father always wanted him to be is honestly one of the best character arcs I've seen in any anime

Thorfinn: we have no enemies

Canute: *Encircles him with murderous forces.*
"Are you sure about that-"

I'm a busy man people are waiting for me

Einar: "You call yourself a king, but you're actually just a theif"

His father wasn't against defending yourself with violence if necessary he was against being the perpetrator of violence.
Seems
more like the seasons are meant to juxtapose each other in that the
ideals held by Thorfin in each has its time and place and are extreme
absolutes in either season being absolute Bellicism and absolute
Pacifism respectively; we are just half way through his character
development no?

RIGHT!!! Complete pacifism though beautiful in theory is a road to extinction in reality.

I also agree that a thorphan has not finished developing at least I hope he has not because his father could not have wanted him to be beaten a 100 times just for 1 conversation.

Almost-complete Pacifism is enough to stop most people, and even lead to fall of empires. Even if 1 lakh people fall due to assault of the aggressor, the next 1 lakh people can rise up and defy if they have enough moral strength. The aggressor can't put down everybody. At some point he will stop, and lead to a benevolent regime. If you try to stop ur aggressor by violence, u will need to do even more violence than ur aggressor, and even then it may not guarantee the survival of you or ur friends. This, with very few exceptions, lead to very bad consequences, and perhaps even you will begin to act like the aggressor u earlier fought.

Thats only because martyrs have a way of inciting the spirit of those that remain. Pacifism is inevitably a bluff. In the end people are moved by action. Action doesnt have to be violent but aggressors commit genocide of people who are pacifists. In the end martyrs just fuel the righteousness of those that remain and give them purpose to fight for, but unironically have of them think the pacifists are idiots for wasting their lives by sacrificing for nothing. Violence for violence has a huge cost but it solves conflicts even if only for a short time. There is a time and a place for it. The time for it is after the battle.

Statistics have shown non-violent resistance has been more successful than violent resistances, contrary to popular opinion of some(perhaps they just look at the example of American Revolution, and even that the 13 American slums were successful only because they got help from France).
Also violence will never be the answer in usual circumstances, for example, u can't just start a violent rebellion in ur own democratic country. You have to adopt non-violent resistance.
Talking is always better than slapping. Only rarely do you need to slap. For example, talking with mad dogs won't work, only slapping will do. But as we know, most people aren't like mad-dogs. Most of them have reasoning power.

You are very much mislabeling "resistance". There is no statistics that show what you're speaking of. Funny you should speak of France, even their bloodless revolution was violent, it just didnt result in the decapitation of the monarchy... that time. Even Ghandi, though a pacifist, accomplished nothing other than moving others to take action. Dont get me wrong it has purpose but the world doesnt listen to lack of action. Pacifism just baits over aggressive ideologies into giving other normally passive ideologies into defending themselves. Pacifism is a luxury of the protected. You're projecting extremes in your comments, there isnt one way to do it, it's not either passive or be a mad dog... Its just that your perspective is full of holes. People tend to not see reason when they define themselves in a belief, anytime something challenges that they feel threatened. For this just look at political parties or ideologies where the individuals identify themselves by their groups. Mob mentality has a way of preventing reasoning. Whats that MIB quote, a person is smart, people are dumb and violent.(paraphrasing of course)

And bloodless revolution? Didn't lead to decapitation of king? French Revolution includes the phase led by Republican radicals/Jacobins also, you know...
Even ur basics about French Revolution and its consequences seem to be absurd, and you lecture a person here who has been studying about these things for some years now...

And should I quote researchers here? Why can't you people just Google ti check the statistics I have mentioned? Check the works of Maria Stephan, Erica Chenoweth, Gene Sharpe, etc.

Because the burden of proof falls on you to prove your claims in the statistics you claim exists not on us to find it for you.

And I don't tell them exact source to the opponents online, because according to my experience, most of the time these opponents(sometimes trolls) just want to demean me and delegitimise my claims using fallacies, not that they actually want to read sources.

I am not a lawyer or a teacher here. Pls do ur own research. Your politicians tell you many things, do u ask them for proofs? No. You just blindly believe whatever nonsense they say, even if they promote violence or racism.
But when another guy tells you some basic knowledge, you will ask for "proof" on social media instead of doing basic readings in books or online sources (despite getting hints for the sources)

I was talking about American Revolution, not French Revolution. Also we know what French Revolution led to.
Forget it. I just hope you guys have violent wives, violent sons, violent parents, violent friends etc to resolve all disputes among urselves. Might is right after all....

I don't know.. India and Britain are a pretty famous example of near total pacifist rebellion.

Rulers have only as much power as their keys give them and their keys only have as much power as their own subordinates give them. Such hierarchy carries on and on all the way down to the common man. Disrupt the power flow and eventually the organization will topple. Usually this is done by killing the people near the top but if the system revolves around things people centric then you don't need to do that so much.

Unfortunately most modern dictators gain their wealth not from the people by from the land with things like oil, diamonds, and rare earth metals which can be mined by foreign companies. However, even in such cases pacifist movements can still reach out to the customers of those companies and incite change as was done with the whole "Blood Diamond" situation.

Edit: btw just don't buy diamonds for jewelry. The whole system is rigged because one company has a monopoly on all the world's diamonds. De Beers owns 99% of the world's diamonds and is intentionally making them a rare commodity even though they aren't actually that rare geologically.

Like i said they just moved others who actually got things done. Not to take away from them, they definitely had an impact but pacifism only works if your enemy has a conscience...

Thats bullshit. Pacifism only works against men who have everything they need and are not willing to tarnish their
conscience or soul if you will. Try standing against desperate men who take for their survival with pacifism and see if that works.

You understand that this story you have been watching has been affirming what I am saying?

I feel like people are misunderstanding Thorfinn's character development. I don't think he's turning passifist, merely learning to value the weight of a human life... So much so that taking it should be a last option.
This is not to say he won't use violence if needed, it's to say that if there's any other possible means, including self harm, he will take it instead of taking a person's life.

He literally says violence is a last resort, meaning he sees violence as having purpose meaning he's not a pacifist lol idk why they are misusing the word

By dictionary definition, Thorfinn is a pacifist. Pacifism isn't the idea of being free from your hand of potential violence, it is just rejecting it's participation as much as you possibly can. Just because he would use violence if absolutely necessary, doesn't mean he isn't a pacifist. He's realistic, but ideal. There is almost always a way to avoid violence and not participate, but through very rare occasions, you might just have to.

the dictionary definition of a pacifist is literally "a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable." Not as much as you possibly can. Not unless absolutely necessary. You are factually incorrect by your own metrics.

There are different types of pacifism.

"Absolute Pacifism".

"Militant Pacifism".

"Conditional Pacifism/Deontological Pacifism".

"Selective Pacifism".

"Active Pacifism".

Absolute pacifism is where one does not participate in war and violence under any circumstance at all. Not in self defense and not even to possibly avoid violence and war on a greater scale. This mindset is actually considered very dangerous, as written by Professor Jeff McMahan at Oxford University in his book "Pacifism and Moral Theory" (2010) which is the idea of pacifism you speak of.

Thorfinn, (right now anyway) is what we would consider a Conditional Pacifist. This is a pacifist that will not participate in war and violence unless it becomes absolutely unavoidable. Even if their person gets thrown in prison or dies. They would gladly sacrifice themselves to avoid violence and war. But they will actively participate in self defense if it involves saving an individual that is not themselves. But never in the means to take another life, not even the life of the aggressor. You can read about this here: https://iep.utm.edu/pacifis... The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

So yes, Thorfinn is a pacifist by definition. He just practices the more dutiful aspect of the ideology.

What definition are you reading?... the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means, this is pacifism by the dictionary.

Yeah that's about it valuing the human life, you can't just take someone's life because you just want to kill violence is never the answer but it is a last resort

He still has that speed it's just that in this episode he doesn't have to fight back with his his fist

yea his father was a mix, first choice was peace, second choice was you dead.
Thorfin has both of those ideals in him, all he has to do is balance them.

If you took anything from this episode it should be Thorfinn is anything but a pacifist. He views violence as a last resort. He doesnt reject violence. He's exactly how his father was, going from warrior, to guilt and avoiding war, to fighting for those he cares about. Thorfinn fought snake and he's not going to lay down his life to make a point, but he's definitely fine with risking it. Pacifism is another extreme that just isnt represented.

it's true that Thors and I believe even Thorfinn ideology is not to allow everyone beat you, and I am sure Thorfinn is not thinking to make something he gonna use on daily basis. The reason why he decided to do it here is I think it's because of a very strong reason:
He decided to do it in the middle of a group of animals who their whole life have been taught to kill, he wanted to show them there is another way that can be used to achieve things and not necessarily violence
I don't know about Vikings code but I am just gonna assume they are no different than Askeladd, they are not really men of word and if fought back there is no guarantee that he wouldn't be ambushed.
But if you win without a fight then this might trigger something in their heads and really paralyze them from doing what they are used to do.

You've hit the nail on the head imo. His actions are what even allowed him the opportunity to speak in peaceful terms with Canute. Otherwise by now he'd be blood-stained on a mountain of corpses. And how would that be any different than what they did to Ketil's men? What grounds would he have to request that they cease their actions?

he made a promise so he kept like a real man blind asshole

*Ourselves...

I don't like this Thorfinn i think Canute is now my favorite. Thorfinn ways are too soft. You can agree to disagree but he aint my character no more.

You really didn't feel any chills when he stood back up and called out that warrior to finish what he started? Or when the guy was so exhausted that he collapsed and Thorfinn stood firm?

i wont comment anything on this because i might let some spoiler slip so i will just like the comment

Yea I almost started to spoil and realized how uncool that would be so I didn't hit enter. The manga is so amazing. But the anime is really amazing as well. No complaints yet, really.

His character development goes crazy lol

Seriously lmao, it took 46 episodes, but damn, he did it. He became his father xD! It's really depressing, since what Canuta says is basically how people in the medieval eras used to think, to justify violence.

Looks like Canute is rebelling to God now

Canute and thorfinn kinda like switch places like the hair thorfinn got long hair now same with Canute back then and is soft kinda and now Canute is like the old thorfinn

And some people insist that he isn't badass anymore. Makes me facepalm so hard I leave a mark.

I feel the same, peeps dont understand thorfin is literally thinking ahead, he couldve easily killed canute but theres no happy ending from it. Its only going to complicate the cycle. This anime is literally about consequences of action. Its not another OP main hack and slash, go watch bleach or demon slayer if thats all you need from plot

Hey demon is actually worth watching, don't throw that garbage bleach with it.

You should have said watch garbage like bleach and one piece or some shit like that.

what terrible bait....or a terrible and wrong take

you'll look like Shigaraki...he's right now the baddest of them all. Who can take all those hits and unwaver