Ivan Fyodorovich

@peterrhague “Everyone in the world…” “heh chud a poll off terminally online libtards came up with a different answer than you predicted. Look how stupid you are”

Amazing how lots of self appointed game theory experts confidently asserting that blue is the stupid choice. But every time this poll is run blue wins. Not only is the “game theory” answer predicting the wrong outcome, its explanatory power is based on it being able to predict the right answer. So it’s doubly wrong.

This cat alone is worth more than the lives of every pseudo-NGO leech in America and Europe combined

@urso_bruto @StuffForSisters The “expected” is important because if you lose, there is obviously no military benefit and you fail to prevent harms. Losing/failing to achieve your objective does not automatically make your war/military action in war immoral

@urso_bruto @StuffForSisters Proportionality jus in bello is that the EXPECTED (very important) military benefit must justify the EXPECTED harms inflicted on civilians. Both are based on reasonable prior assessment, not post-facto analysis

A landowner owns a forest, fenced and clearly posted: "No Trespassing!" A stranger has been setting snares on that woodland to catch rabbits and birds. Regardless of the legality, is it wrong for that landowner to create camouflaged spike pits on his property? Why or why not?

@urso_bruto @StuffForSisters Just because I am only punching you right now, doesn’t mean I won’t escalate to murder later. So lethal force in self-defense is allowed. Shooting trespassers isn’t necessarily morally wrong because the landlord can’t know how the trespasser will respond to getting caught

@urso_bruto @StuffForSisters As far as your definition of proportionality, you are assuming the landlord has perfect knowledge of the poacher’s intent. Law acknowledges that you won’t have perfect knowledge of your aggressor’s intent.

@urso_bruto @StuffForSisters Proportionality just in bello, which is what OP was referencing due to the blow-up about a Catholic tweet misunderstanding proportionality, has nothing to do with the physical proportionality of violence vs violence. Just in bello proportionality is about discrimination

@AlecMacGillis $175k a year and can’t afford their mortgage and no savings to not end up on welfare? She’s too stupid to mock

Fwiw, photo above is not of Ms. Cowan, but of this person:

"Sheryl Cowan, 57, was making $272,000 a year as a senior VP at a U.S.A.I.D.-funded nonprofit when she was let go at the end of March 2025. Last month she had an online interview for a $19-an-hour job managing a Penzeys Spices store in Falls Church, Va." nytimes.com/2026/04/21/us/…

@MittenstheGlove @Devon_Eriksen_ The Japanese position was status quo ante with the imperial and military hierarchy in place. The same people that started the pacific war in 1931. That would just delay the death toll until they invaded China again for resources.

@ifchernov @Devon_Eriksen_ Diplomacy was an option that would have limited the death toll further which you argue the US did not want any conditional surrender. Though the imperial family was asked not to be harmed like the Tsar and his family, the US agreed because they didn’t intent on hurting him.

The Mailbox Test, like the breakfast test, is an excellent way to tell who you can allow to wield power in your society. Goes like this: If someone is hurt trying to destroy someone else's stuff in order to take pleasure from their pain, do you sympathize with... The aggressor because he got hurt? Or with the guy who owns the stuff, because he wasn't the aggressor? You can have people in your society who fail the Mailbox Test. That's okay... they can work at hospices, or shelters for orphaned kittens, or something. But you cannot allow them to vote, or otherwise wield political power. Because if you do, they will open the gates of the city to the enemy. I am personally tired of everyone pretending that people who enjoy ruining things for random strangers are just kewt smol beans who are only aggressive because of all the complex socioeconomic factors and lack of resources. They knew someone would be hurt by what they did. They knew that someone had done literally nothing harmful to them. And those two ideas, in combination made them feel pleasure. And they went and did it. That is the sign of a rotten soul. Defending ourselves and our property is not just a right, it's a moral obligation. Otherwise, we just kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with, someone who may not be able to defend herself. I don't care if a vandal breaks his arms trying to destroy my stuff. Because I value my stuff more than a vandal's arms. And the fact that he tried to destroy somebody else's stuff shows that he, too, values his arms less than the opportunity to hurt somebody. We cannot allow such people inside the city, and we cannot give the keys to those who would open the gates for them.

@MittenstheGlove @Devon_Eriksen_ And what I’m saying is you lack even a basic understanding of jus in bello or LOAC, the subject of discussion. ‘Nukes are icky’ and ‘America bad’ are not coherent arguments for just war theory

@ifchernov @Devon_Eriksen_ What I’m saying is we had more or less done enough damage by that time. Rationalize it any way you feel you need to. We really just wanted to beat Russia so they couldn’t claim half of Japan.

@urso_bruto @StuffForSisters It’s the indiscriminate nature that makes it wrong, not the ‘propotionality’. Killing in self-defense is disproportionate to someone just trying to bash your face in non-lethally, but it’s morally permissible

@StuffForSisters The response of the landowner is wrong because it is morally disproportionate to the offenses of trespassing and poaching. Moreover, it is an indiscriminate response, and so innocent third parties, adventurous children, for example, could be injured or killed.

@StuffForSisters Does the wrongness of setting traps decrease as the number of trespassers increases? A lethal trap for one man is immoral (non-lethal would be ok). But if it’s one hundred poachers killing off all the wildlife?

@MittenstheGlove @Devon_Eriksen_ Firebombing is actually one of the better arguments *for* nukes not violating proportionality- firebombing Hiroshima would have been just as deadly. The nukes were effective because of the psychological impact - America was so advanced technologically that resistance was futile

@ifchernov @Devon_Eriksen_ There wasn’t much need for the US to invade Japan again after Okinawa. They blockades prevented supplies and the Japanese were starving, the previous firebombs had similar destructive capabilities as the nukes had previously and Russia was going to attack from the North.

@MittenstheGlove @Devon_Eriksen_ And yet Japan hadn’t surrendered, nor were they willing to accept American terms as stated at Potsdam. And killing millions by blockade and starvation is still more damage to civilians than killing ~250k with nukes.

@MittenstheGlove @Devon_Eriksen_ Plus winning confers absolutely immunity from war crimes

@ifchernov @Devon_Eriksen_ Tell that to Japan in WW2 lol

The sad part is so many people debate the merits on this misreading of jus in bello, rather than pointing out the basic error

“Harms to my enemy” has nothing to do with proportionality. It’s “harms to innocents”. This is the basic stumbling block of pretty much anyone who doesn’t read beyond the chapter headings