Joseph P Gardling

Anyone remember when Craig Wright posted "signatures" from block 9 on the @satoshi account (via @andyrowe)? People noted that these forgeries could be made by anyone. But did you know that these particular signatures are *provably fake*? #FaketoshiFail I'll explain... 1/6

@Sugzza @etan_partai @pewresearch God doesn’t let you escape from axioms or circular logic. Sorry!

@etan_partai @pewresearch Morality beyond personal preference cannot exist without God. Believing that murder is morally wrong under a physicalist belief system is no less delusional

Americans’ views on the morality of homosexuality

@Sugzza @veganstreetwear What gives something moral value in your opinion?

@veganstreetwear Correct, neither a dog nor a cow have moral value.

There’s no moral difference between a dog and a cow. Just a cultural one. And culture isn’t a justification for harm.

@awgaffney Presented in broad strokes, sure. But that doesn’t mean we ought to be fine with (hypothetically) spending 99% of healthcare funds on 1%. The devil, of course, is in the details.

For one thing, that "minority" changes each year. More importantly, it is simply another way of saying: "at a given time, some people are very very very sick, whereas most are generally healthy or not very sick" There will never be a world in which that ceases to be true. 2/2

A healthcare statistic that is often presented as surprising, even problematic — the majority of healthcare spending goes towards a relatively small minority of the population — is neither surprising or problematic. 1/2

@icarus62 @SpiritOf_TheAge @NotEvolution1 Shhh! They don’t like logic.

@SpiritOf_TheAge @NotEvolution1 A 'creator' would have to be infinitely more complex still, but you seem OK with that existing uncaused.

Everyone knows there’s a God Romans 1

@SpiritOf_TheAge @Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 Right, I wasn’t saying harm and health are the same. I was using health as an example of *something else* that you need to bootstrap with an unproven assumption (axioms). Go ahead and try to define health without any axioms.

@gardling @Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 The salient word was harm not unhealthy. To cite "self evident" is not an answer, the earlier comment and atheists in general repeatedly borrow from a Christian world-view but pretend it is "self-evident" to do so. It isn't. Molecules alone aren't a basis for evaluating harm.

We understand it. We just reject the hidden premise you lot keep sneaking in: that morality needs a god to exist in the first place. Humans can reason about harm, fairness, consent and wellbeing without pretending slavery, genocide, and eternal torture become “moral” because a deity allegedly approved them.

@Sugzza @BRijswijk @darinsmith1974 @DeeWaynee94 In fact they *do* become immoral because they make the people undergoing those things “unpleasant” (in agony). If you don’t agree that experiencing maximal unremitting pain with no “upside” is *bad*, then you’re just delusional or arguing in bad faith.

@BRijswijk @darinsmith1974 @DeeWaynee94 if i recall correctly, "you cannot reason about it without a shared moral principle. The premise you are sneaking in is that these things are intrinsically wrong. Slavery, genocide, and torture do not become immoral just because they make you feel uncomfortable or unpleasant."

@Sugzza @PunishedChaos1 @DeeWaynee94 You’re dodging, because “with God” just smuggles in unproven axioms (or “circular reasoning” as you incorrectly put it).

@PunishedChaos1 @DeeWaynee94 It isn't relevant, the subject is morality without God, not with god.

@SpiritOf_TheAge @Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 I was using a non-morality-based analogy to help them understand. Try to define “healthy” yourself. Or at least explain why shooting yourself in the gut with a shotgun is unhealthy.

@gardling @Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 He's right, it's circular. Why can't you see it? Why is shooting yourself in the gut any different than shooting a rock to pieces?

@Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 Nope. They are just unproven assumptions. They’re not used to prove *themselves*, which would make them circular.

@gardling @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 Axioms are circular.

@Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 Religious folk use axioms, too, even if they don’t realize it.

@Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 No. It’s just an axiom. Specifically, the axiom of extensionality. Look it up if you want.

@Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 Like try proving that two sets are equal if they have the same elements. You can’t. It’s self-evident.

@Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 Nope, it’s just an axiom. Math has them, too, of course.

@Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 Any moral system needs *some* axiomatic basis, obviously.

@Sugzza @TonyStark429182 @DeeWaynee94 It’s self evident that it’s bad all else equal. It’s like asking why shooting yourself in the gut is unhealthy.

@sentinel_actual @PotatoMcWhiskey Is this what you write in on your ballot box?

@PotatoMcWhiskey You're asking me to reduce a complex political evaluation to a binary so you know which box to put me in. Truly a mental midget.

You guys were already radical nazis you just use this shit as an excuse

@sentinel_actual @Ciscopanda @SocDoneLeft > People being killed with AR-15s happens much less often than late term abortions Not true, at least > 24 weeks. Don't make shit up if you can't back it up.

@Ciscopanda @SocDoneLeft That would be true if it was in good faith. They never argue that it happens rarely, they argue that it NEVER happens. They make an absolute statement. People being killed with AR-15s happens much less often than late term abortions but I'm sure you think its a problem.

"Late Stage Abortion" is fearmongering. It's incredibly rare. About 1% of abortions occur after 21 weeks, when >99% of preterm births die. About 0.01% occur after 28 weeks. In 15 years, Minnesota had just 10. These are overwhelmingly for health reasons.

@SherrerKadin @MediumSizeMeech What part of “assaulting him first” didn’t you understand?

@MediumSizeMeech Of course his political view the only thing that matters not the facts his political opinion of course

MAGA hat in the background, and you admit to assaulting him first, beat his ass again Thad Castle!!!

@ComputerSageJAB @FredLambert You’re not providing facts. You’re making excuses. “It was in jest” “it’s hard to go through customs”. Those are weak excuses.

@FredLambert I am trying to manipulate the narrative?!? 😂😂😂 I provide facts, you not so much.

Elon Musk actively sought to visit the island of a convicted pedophile in order to attend the "wildest parties". It's not a smear. It's a fact, based on the evidence from Epstein and Musk's emails released by the DoJ. Musk is now and since September 2025 actively lying about the situation. It's untrue that "no one pushed harder than" him to release the files. In fact, Musk, who tweets hundreds of times a day, hadn't mentioned the Epstein files since July 2025, other than lying about "refusing" Epstein's invitation. While he did decline one island invitation due to a scheduling conflict, Musk asked and planned with Epstein to go to his island on two other occasions, and the Tesla CEO specifically asked Epstein about when his "wildest parties" would be. At that point, Epstein was already convicted of soliciting prostitution from minors, and Musk clearly knew that Epstein threw some "wild parties." It's not a "misinterpretation" in any way to claim that these emails show Musk trying to go to the island, which is literally the opposite of "refusing to go". Musk is clearly lying about the situation. Bookmark this and send it to anyone who still believe Elon Musk.

@Arvolear You should post a big warning that once the messages (or just their hashes) are known along with the signature/pubkey, the private key is leaked.

I've created a simple CLI to play with the quirk. Provide two arbitrary messages, and it generates a private key that will produce the same signature for these messages. github.com/Arvolear/ecdsa…