A true Jedi

Not always. A Jedi is aware that violence can propagate violence. A Jedi is strong and patient. They don’t fight for themselves, they fight for others. If their mission, they’re survival, or another who can’t defend themselves is in danger a Jedi will fight, but Jedi avoid conflict if there is another way, including taking a bit of a beating. You mention the Sith- but being true to the Jedi code, the Jedi don’t use Sith ways to fight Sith, and the Jedi don’t engage in battles pointlessly. Obiwan and Yoda knew they couldnt beat the empire alone let alone Vader and Palpatine. They fled when that became obvious and waited decades while the people who murdered their friends and destroyed their order expanded their power. They waited, not fighting- until the time was right. Jedi are patient. Jedi choose their battles and fight when it matters, not just so they can say win or lose they put up a fight.

Well, first of all, this is hardly a valid comparison, the kid was dealing with a school bully, not a dark lord of the Sith. Second, if this kid was being bullied, we can safely assume the bully was bullying other kids, so, assuming that's the case, he should have stood up to the bully for the sake of those other kids. And if he's the only kid being bullied, then nobody else is going to fight his battles for him, so he's the one that needs to do it. Yes, form zero states that a Jedi ought to know when to fight, and seek alternate means and only use fighting as a last resort, but if the bully has already escalated things to a physical altercation, form zero no longer applies. If the Jedi never allowed themselves to fight when it mattered, they would have been useless as an organization.

1. If it is an invalid comparison, and we are discussing school children and not Sith- why did your first post bring up the comparison? My reference was not that the children are actually Sith, but that “might makes right” is a Sith philosophy- as I assume you were alluding to in your first post.
2. Beating up his bullies does not ensure the safety of other kids. That’s like saying that if you steal from a thief he won’t steal from someone else. He may not steal from YOU again, but you haven’t protected anyone else. In fact- in defeat he may feel more compelled from need or disgrace to go double down on someone else. All you have done is met wrong with wrong. Any lessons possibly learned aren’t by your hand.
3. He does have someone to fight his battles. They’re called teachers, adults, his peers. Just as adults have police and other means. If we all “fought or own battles” it would be chaos in the streets, and where does the battle end What if they seek revenge instead of stopping?

Knowing when to fight means having the wisdom to realize when violence is an effective tool. If he felt his life was in danger, which the fact he is alive would indicate it wasn’t- then it would possibly be an effective tool to survive. If he felt that violence was his only option, or would serve a greater good then perhaps. But he had no reason to. To the contrary- fighting back could have escalated the force being used by him, and what’s more- if he suspected he couldn’t win, would just multiply the harm done but serve no purpose beyond returning harm for harm. He still would’ve got beaten up- so that stays the same. He could still tell authorities after the fact. That remained the same. All that changed was whether or not he decided to meet force with force. The desire to hurt someone because they hurt you is not a Jedi, or enlightened trait for that matter.

I get where youre coming from, but i think he made the right decision. Ive been in my fair share of fights, Fought when i had to and took my beatings without hesitation. In a very strange way its like taoism, sometimes its better to fight sometimes not. Its different for everyone.

Well said @pandaman1. Most real fights that aren’t to the death or serious injury, it’s hard to tell the “winner” from the “loser” after the fight is done- but in most developed countries, we could argue the “winner” is the one who is able to (hopefully) walk away and doesn’t end up in jail, in court, or in trouble. There are times when one may need to defend themselves or others. There are times when violence is the last tool we have that might work, and losing isn’t an option. The rest of the time- it’s less the fight you have to worry about than what comes next. Be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the present. It comes down to wether taking or dishing a beating is likely to cause or save more trouble in the future. In this case- it was a smart move.

Agreed @guest_ i couldnt have said it better myself.

Yet he still loses.

What a load of shit froma scared, small, sad, mind. There’s so much wrong that I can’t cover it. Was MLK, Gandhi, Buddha, or any number of those seeking non violence “beta” in your book? Because they realized that violence fuels a cycle of violence? If we hit those who hit us twice as hard, then every time someone hits back you must hit them again and each time it increases 2 fold until before long it’s thoisamds of times magnitude the original hit. You mention “Islam” and I think that’s a reference to terrorism and extremism. Do you not realize that those extremists are “hitting back” for things going back through Afghanistan, the oil wars, WW2, even the crusades, and each time we “hit back” we create more dead loved ones and destroyed lives that fuel another generation who has something to “hit back” over? Grow up. In this “world of alpha’s” you want you’re just a guppy and would be one of the first little twinkle toes to be ground up. Big talk, small.... attributes.

rule one of being alpha. Murder everything that stands up to you and anything in your way until there is only those that dont care