Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford accused of pedophilia and taking illicit bonus.

Jul 24, 2018
1,612
1,291
330
Paedophiles are rife in government, the entertainment industry and judicial system.
I think it's far more common with humans in general than people like to admit.

You have to ask yourself, for the 100,000+ years humans have been around, how many of those years were spent waiting for people to turn 18? And factor in that many cultures even today are essentially marrying people off soon as they can procreate (or sooner).

Exactly.
 
Dec 11, 2018
329
239
170
I think it's much more complicated than that. I also think the Dunning-Kruger effect plays a big role in it.
Or maybe it's much less complicated than that, and it's just that gross amounts of money open people's minds to possibilities previously unconsidered? As someone else said: government, judicial, and entertainment is basically full of pedophiles. To the very wealthy, laws prohibiting drugs and activity with minors are only for the common people.
 

OSC

Banned
Jun 16, 2018
1,184
467
215
I think it's far more common with humans in general than people like to admit.

You have to ask yourself, for the 100,000+ years humans have been around, how many of those years were spent waiting for people to turn 18? And factor in that many cultures even today are essentially marrying people off soon as they can procreate (or sooner).

Exactly.
word is research shows women sexual market peak is at 18, and if laws are taken out some suggest the actual peak in dating sexual market value is 16.

“The age gradient for women definitely surprised us — both in terms of the fact that it steadily declined from the time women were 18 to the time they were 65, and also how steep it was,” said Elizabeth Bruch, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Michigan and an author of the study. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/style/dating-apps-online-men-women-age.html
 
Last edited:

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
636
445
845
Ottawa, Canada
I think it's far more common with humans in general than people like to admit.

You have to ask yourself, for the 100,000+ years humans have been around, how many of those years were spent waiting for people to turn 18? And factor in that many cultures even today are essentially marrying people off soon as they can procreate (or sooner).

Exactly.
Not very many, let's be honest... I mean, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet has Juliet at 13 and Romeo just a bit older, and the play makes it pretty clear they go all the way. I'm not condoning those attitudes, of course -- just noting that it took a long, long time before we better understood concepts of sexual maturity and consent.
 
Nov 20, 2018
177
91
175
I think it's far more common with humans in general than people like to admit.

You have to ask yourself, for the 100,000+ years humans have been around, how many of those years were spent waiting for people to turn 18? And factor in that many cultures even today are essentially marrying people off soon as they can procreate (or sooner).

Exactly.
No it isn't common.
I only agree with you about the past, when life expectancy could be less than 40 years old.
 
Jan 7, 2014
3,648
1,962
390
lol gtfo with this sensationalist bullshit
If its legal, its legal, there are no ifs and buts

Barely legal driver, barely legal alcohol drinking, barely legal speed limit.
I wasn't editorializing, that's a category of porn. If it was midget porn, I would have wrote "midget porn".
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
888
967
210
No it isn't common.
I only agree with you about the past, when life expectancy could be less than 40 years old.
This doesn't make much sense, although your life expectancy might have be 40 years that's only true if you take into account childhood mortality, if you make it past the first few years then the life expectancy increases a lot, if you make it to adulthood your life expectancy increases to 60-70 years old.

So, the reason people got together at much younger ages had nothing to do with life expectancy.
 
Likes: OSC
Nov 20, 2018
177
91
175
This doesn't make much sense, although your life expectancy might have be 40 years that's only true if you take into account childhood mortality, if you make it past the first few years then the life expectancy increases a lot, if you make it to adulthood your life expectancy increases to 60-70 years old.

So, the reason people got together at much younger ages had nothing to do with life expectancy.
People simply died in their 30's due to the terrible living conditions. In Britain a thousand years ago, you were lucky to live till 40 years old. In those days you couldn't wait till you were 30 to have children.
 

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,053
1,049
225
People simply died in their 30's due to the terrible living conditions. In Britain a thousand years ago, you were lucky to live till 40 years old. In those days you couldn't wait till you were 30 to have children.
See this is what confuses me. People say that people who have sex with teenagers under the legal age (which varies) are mentally sick and some say they should be castrated. Well, then the people of the past must have all been mentally sick because mental health isn't determined by what the current law is.

Is a person who sleeps with a 17 year old in one state (where the law is 18) mentally sick but if they had done the same thing in a neighboring state (where the law is 16 or 17) they would not be mentally sick?
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2014
7,654
116
440
Is a person who sleeps with a 17 year old in one state (where the law is 18) mentally sick but if they had done the same thing in a neighboring state (where the law is 16 or 17) they would not be mentally sick?
Only if you are so self-centered that you don't even consider other places being different than where you grew up. It's one thing humanity as a whole can't even seem to agree on. A line has to be drawn somewhere obviously, but with how influenced it is by region, beliefs, culture, it feels a bit arbitrarily drawn.
It's like hollywood movies in the 90's/00's demonised smoking weed so much, which just seems odd if you grew up in a society where this wasn't a crime.

You are entirely shaped by where you grow up. Driving at 16 seems weird to me, much like how being able to buy alcohol legally at 16 would probably blow the mind of someone where they had to be 21 to do so. Yet when you break one of these age laws, especially the sex one, you immediately get labeled as reprobate, immoral or worse, even if elsewhere it's not a crime.
 

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,053
1,049
225
Only if you are so self-centered that you don't even consider other places being different than where you grew up. It's one thing humanity as a whole can't even seem to agree on. A line has to be drawn somewhere obviously, but with how influenced it is by region, beliefs, culture, it feels a bit arbitrarily drawn.
It's like hollywood movies in the 90's/00's demonised smoking weed so much, which just seems odd if you grew up in a society where this wasn't a crime.

You are entirely shaped by where you grow up. Driving at 16 seems weird to me, much like how being able to buy alcohol legally at 16 would probably blow the mind of someone where they had to be 21 to do so. Yet when you break one of these age laws, especially the sex one, you immediately get labeled as reprobate, immoral or worse, even if elsewhere it's not a crime.
I see, so if you grew up in a state where 17 is legal but then you moved to another state where 17 is not legal and then you sleep with a 17 year old, you are not mentally sick because where you grew up 17 is legal.

My point is, people act like the laws are some determination of whether or not a person is mentally sick or not and pretend that the same actions that are condemned by most are ok in the past or in another state or country.
 
Aug 15, 2016
518
15
210
About him taking illicit bonus I can see him doing that. Ever since the situation with Sega, Aliens game, and funneling money to his own game while shipping Sega's game to another company I see him as a very shady person with money. I can also pocketing part of the as bonus as well. The guy earned a lot of mistrust in that fiasco.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
888
967
210
People simply died in their 30's due to the terrible living conditions. In Britain a thousand years ago, you were lucky to live till 40 years old. In those days you couldn't wait till you were 30 to have children.
Like I said before in my post, that's absolutely wrong, people who made into adulthood had a life expectancy of 60-70 years. The only reason you see life expectancy of 30 years during the Middle ages is because of the high mortality rate among infants.
 
Last edited:
Jul 24, 2018
1,612
1,291
330
Like I said before in my post, that's absolutely wrong, people who made into adulthood had a life expectancy of 60-70 years. The only reason you see life expectancy of 30 years during the Middle ages is because of the high mortality rate among infants.
Yup and life expectancy is actually going DOWN now because apparently a lot of people don't want to live in a world where the only thing in theaters is fucking Disney movies.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/life-expectancy-overdose-suicide-761525/

"we’re in the midst of the longest-lasting decline in life expectancy in the U.S. since World War I. "
 
Last edited:
Likes: Isa

OSC

Banned
Jun 16, 2018
1,184
467
215
See this is what confuses me. People say that people who have sex with teenagers under the legal age (which varies) are mentally sick and some say they should be castrated. Well, then the people of the past must have all been mentally sick because mental health isn't determined by what the current law is.

Is a person who sleeps with a 17 year old in one state (where the law is 18) mentally sick but if they had done the same thing in a neighboring state (where the law is 16 or 17) they would not be mentally sick?
Look if a 16 year old is having lots of casual sex, I don't think a one night stand with someone older really makes much of a difference in terms of partners or long term outlook.

That said, given the potential for grooming and other power abuses such relations which could become quite detrimental shouldn't be allowed.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
3,193
3,873
305
your mind
Who the fuck saves porn on a USB stick in today’s day and age? Free streaming porn is a click away whenever you want it. Why save it?

The last time I right-clicked and saved porn was in the fucking 90s because I was a teenager and wasn’t sure if I was gonna find it again.

Not to mention saving it on a USB you are also using to hold important company documents and secrets.

So weird.

The “barely legal” genre angle is the least weird part of this.
 
Likes: OSC

OSC

Banned
Jun 16, 2018
1,184
467
215
Who the fuck saves porn on a USB stick in today’s day and age? Free streaming porn is a click away whenever you want it. Why save it?

The last time I right-clicked and saved porn was in the fucking 90s because I was a teenager and wasn’t sure if I was gonna find it again.

Not to mention saving it on a USB you are also using to hold important company documents and secrets.

So weird.

The “barely legal” genre angle is the least weird part of this.
Also thumb drives are super small nowadays and can be kept on undetectable packaging. Basically easy as f to plant one in a car, house, bottom of a sofa, etc. How do you prove someone created the thumb drive? or added that particular piece of data? Trojans have been known to erase and supplant thumb drive data automatedly upon infected public library pc connection.


On another note, the actual pc with the actual ip could be unlocked and the same IP could open browser windows even invisible ones at various intervals with the right hacked program and even download to a private folder. Anyone with enough technical knowhow could easily incriminate someone else, usb pen drive throw into their home, office or property is just about the lowest tech way to do that.

That said if it is true tumbler, bing and google were hosting this kinda stuff, it kinda is a doublestandard to let these companies get away with it.(as it likely attracts eyeballs and dollars.)
 
Last edited:
May 2, 2017
808
294
205
Pet peeve is the innocent until proven innocent bunk

V Bugliosi said:
Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this. Even the editorial sections of major American newspapers frequently express the view, in reference to a pending case, that "we"--meaning the editors and their readers--have to presume that so-and-so is innocent. To illustrate that the presumption does not apply outside the courtroom, let's say an employer has evidence that an employee has committed theft. If the employer had to presume the person were innocent, he obviously couldn't fire the employee or do anything at all. But of course he not only can fire or demote the employee, he can report him to the authorities.

Actually, even in court the are problems with the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence, we all know, is a hallowed doctrine that separates us from repressive regimes. It's the foundation, in fact, for the rule that is the bedrock of our system of justice--that a defendant can be convicted of a crime only if his guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, legal presumptions are based on the rationale of probability. Under certain situations, experience has shown that when fact "A" is present, the presence of "B" should be presumed to exist unless and until an adverse party disproves it. For example, a letter correctly addressed and properly mailed is presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of mail delivery. But when we apply this underlying basis of probability for a legal presumption to the presumption of innocence, the presumption, it would seem, should fall. Conviction rates show that it is ridiculous to presume that when the average defendant is arrested, charged with a crime, and brought to trial, he is usually innocent. But obviously, the converse presumption that a defendant is presumed to be guilty would be far worse and, indeed, intolerable. Our system, for readily apparent reasons, is far superior to those in nations, mostly totalitarian, which presume an arrested person is guilty and place the burden on the accused to prove his innocence.

The solution would seem to be simply to eliminate the presumption-of-innocence instruction to the jury, keeping those two necessary corollaries of the presumption which do have enormous merit: first, the fact that the defendant has been arrested for and charged with a crime is no evidence of his guilt and should not be used against him; and second and more important, under our system of justice the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt. The defendant has no burden to prove his innocence. It is one thing to say that the defendant does not have to prove his innocence, and that in the absence of affirmative proof of guilt he is entitled to a not-guilty verdict even if he presented no evidence of his innocence at all. To go a step further, however, and say that he is legally presumed to be innocent when he has just been brought to court in handcuffs or with a deputy sheriff at his side seems to be hollow rhetoric. One day a defendant is going to stand up in court and tell the judge, "Your Honor, if I am legally presumed to be-innocent, why have I been arrested for this crime, why has a criminal complaint been filed against me, and why am I now here in court being tried?"

As any seasoned criminal trial lawyer will attest, most juries see through the transparent fiction of the presumption of innocence. Whether they verbalize it or not, as reasonable human beings they know that if the defendant seated at the counsel table in front of them were truly presumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law, they would not have been empaneled to hear and adjudicate the charges brought against the defendant by the law. It is even possible that the articulation of the presumption of innocence by the judge to the jury may, on balance, work to the detriment of the accused. If the jury knows the presumption of innocence is a legal fiction, yet the judge intones the presumption to them in a very sober manner, and with the straightest of countenances, could it be that he thereby loses a speck of credibility in their eyes? And when he subsequently instructs them on those matters which are legally sound and designed by the law to protect the rights of the defendant (e.g., the doctrine of reasonable doubt), they may not take his words as seriously as they should?
Tldr; it is a legal fiction only useful in a courtroom, and even there it has issues.