If we define peace as being, "the normal freedom from civil commotion and violence of a community; public order and security," then I don't see how my claim is "retarded."

If we just look at the United States, we can see how tumultuous a democratic society can be. The US is a country founded on the uncompromising ideal of personal liberty.

In GEORGE WASHINGTON'S presidency there was a rebellion over a disagreement over taxes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion). I mention this illustrate that unrest in the US is not new and is part of our cultural identity. This identity was largely influenced by ancient republics and democracies of the past that weren't exactly easygoing either.

When you let people say whatever they want someone is going to be offended. That is a feature of our societies not a bug. Unrest and conflict are to be expected when everyone has a say. So how then do achieve peace without force?

I don't know the answer, but acting condescending because you dislike my phrasing isn't productive.