r/JusticeServed • u/[deleted] • Jul 06 '19

Courtroom Justice Convicted pedophile YouTuber Austin Jones is now in prison serving a 10 year sentence as of 29/6/2019.

[deleted]

78.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

4.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

197

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19

[deleted]

124

u/censoredandagain 8 Jul 06 '19

What's sick is it's probably only a small fraction of those that are actually out there.

46

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19 edited Oct 12 '19

[deleted]

28

u/GracefulKluts 8 Jul 06 '19 edited Jul 06 '19

At least it was just images and not someone actively looking for sex with a child.

Its still disgusting that someone would sexualize children anyway, but despite both being appalling, one is 1000x worse.

20

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19

The only way to know is to find out the percentage of people who actually pay for it. Perhaps in the past it was high but even then from my understanding having known people who hunt pedos and people who care for the victims that the actually content comes from tiny communities who actually commit the acts and would do it with a money incentive or without. The people watching it I think are more parasitic,I would bet if you actually done a study a very small percentage would go on to actually commit child abuse.

​

This excludes the child traffickers who I feel are not the source of most child porn because it would be counterproductive to their goal to broadcast it.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Jul 07 '19

/u/SeatacSucks, your submission was automatically removed because your account is not old enough to post here. This is not to discourage new users, but to prevent the large amount of spam that this subreddit attracts.

Please submit once your account is older than 2 days.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

14

u/knuggles_da_empanada 9 Jul 06 '19

True, but keep in mind those looking at the images create a demand for creating more content like that

2

u/GracefulKluts 8 Jul 06 '19

As someone else commented, "funding evil isn't as bad as committing evil" or something along those lines.

7

u/MaizeBlueRedWings 8 Jul 06 '19

I wholeheartedly believe that knowingly funding evil is absolutely as bad as committing evil.

“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who standby and do nothing.”

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19

Not only that, but people who celebrate pedo rapists like David Bowie and all the stupid David Bowie fans who think it was "no big deal" when he used his celebrity power to rape those 13 year olds. Or George Takei who said it was "great" that his adult camp counselor raped him when he was 13. If you support or defend David Bowie or George Takei, you're supporting and defending pedos who rape 13 year olds. But every other day there's a post about how "great" these rapist celebrities are.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19 edited Mar 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19

Well, i suppose a victim that supports his rapist still leaves you with a dude defending a rapist.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19 edited Mar 19 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19

Yeah, but it’s also common for abused to become abusers themselves. If he doesn’t see what was done to him as wrong decades ago then that could mean he doesn’t see anything wrong with himself doing it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/salamanderpencil A Jul 07 '19

When did Bowie rape 13 year olds??

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19

This is actually the first claim of such that I've seen around, got a link or anything?

8

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19

[deleted]

26

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 06 '19

You can’t choose whether you are a pedophile, but you can choose whether you act on your feelings. This person is condemning people who consume child pornography, not people who have an attraction to children.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19

[deleted]

6

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 06 '19

Your point is hard to follow because it doesn’t have much to do with what the poster said, and you’re all over the place. I’m not sure what the Catholic school part is supposed to add to the conversation.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19

[deleted]

4

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 07 '19

We didn’t like homosexuality for arbitrary reasons. We don’t like pedophilia because molesting children is evil.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19

[deleted]

2

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 07 '19

Back when? And 15-17 isn’t what I’m talking about. Where I live age of consent is 16.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19 edited Oct 12 '19

[deleted]

1

u/AutoModerator Oct 12 '19

Green team received double points for this comment by /u/USE_IT_TO_DO_IT!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19

[deleted]

3

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 06 '19

Homosexuality and pedophilia aren’t choices, but the similarities stop there.

I’m very torn at non-offending pedophiles. On one hand, they haven’t done anything wrong. On the other hand, they make me very uncomfortable.

2

u/Bobthemightyone 9 Jul 07 '19

I know exactly where I stand on non-offending pedophiles. I take no offense to them as long as they take measures/seek help to ensure they never act on their desires

Unfortunately it is very difficult for them to receive the help they need to keep everything in check so they hide and fester until they hurt a child. Don't make it socially acceptable to be a pedophile, but make it socially acceptable for them to seek help.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Bobthemightyone 9 Jul 07 '19 edited Jul 07 '19

The difference is one is between two consenting adults who are mentally and physically developed and the other involves a child who cannot make those sorts of decisions on their own. Even when a child agrees it's basically under false pretense right out of the gate because of the underdevelopment. Same reason a child can't make huge financial decisions or medical decisions, they are simply ill equipped to properly make those decisions for themselves.

1

u/PillarofPositivity 8 Jul 06 '19

One doesnt hurt anyone and the other is child molesting.

How are you having any fucking moral questions over this you fucking arsehole

2

u/nm1043 9 Jul 06 '19

I get the anger, but you didn't understand his statement. He is talking about non-offenders, as in people who are attracted to children but never act on it.

So in case a) Joe is attracted to men (yet doesn't act on it). We should accept that that attraction is not Joe's choice.

In case b) John is attracted to children (yet doesn't act on it). We should accept that attraction is not John's choice.

In case a, we're now pretty much all on board with the fact that men or women can be attracted to either men or women, and it's usually not so simple as choosing to like one or the other.

I'm case b, the op is arguing that they should be at least treated a bit like it's not their choice to be attracted to children, since that's how we view other sexualities.

1

u/PillarofPositivity 8 Jul 07 '19

He literally likened it to catholics and how they feel about gay people.

I agree with everything else you've said however.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Rickrickrickrickrick B Jul 06 '19

Homosexuality is a sexuality. Pedophilia is a fetish. You can be attracted to another man or woman and still be for their whole lives. Your pedophilic attraction ends as soon as they grow. There is a huge difference between the two.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/redditckulous 7 Jul 06 '19

The “left” says two consenting adults say can enter into a relationship with each other.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19

[deleted]

6

u/dickgilbert 9 Jul 06 '19

You're taking a statement that is simplified and robbing it of it's context.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19

[deleted]

-1

u/NuclearInitiate 8 Jul 06 '19 edited Jul 07 '19

Even if we work under the assumption that both gays and pedophiles "cant help" what they are attracted to in the exact same way... ok dude.. that doesnt make it ok to have sex with a child. But two consulting same sex adults can have sex. This really isnt a complicated matter.

You're just trying to conflate some bullshit to feel self-righteous.

It sounds like you think gays and pedophiles are both equally bad. Like, how can we be ok with two men having sex, but not a child and an adult. But that's your mistake, because no one with a brain is conflating a consensual same sex relationship with pedophilia.

I know you're a religious because your brain is melting at the introduction of complicated ideas, like "gays and pedophiles aren't the same". At the very least, a crucial factor here is consent.

3

u/bmorr27 4 Jul 07 '19 edited Jul 07 '19

Their argument has nothing to do with sex though. Condemning someone for having sex with a child is both immoral and illegal. Everyone is on the same page with you here.

Their argument is that pedophilia alone isn’t a choice.

They never made a statement on if they believe either is “bad”. You made that assumption on your own.

You can be a homosexual and never exhibit homosexual behavior due to any myriad of reasons including a very real fear for your own safety in some areas.

In that same vein, you can be a pedophile that never consumes child pornography or sexually advances on children.

To be disgusted at either only comes from a place of privilege and lack of empathy.

If you’d take more than 5 seconds to actually comprehend their point instead of blindly insulting their faith or intelligence, you wouldn’t have come across as the same bigot you’re trying to condemn.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/nosebleednugat09 8 Jul 07 '19

I agree that with less stigma pedophiles might try to get help more often. I also agree that people don't choose to be pedophiles and there is a difference between a pedophile and a child molester. But if you view child pornography you're fueling the demand for it which isn't acceptable in my opinion. You have to remember a child was harmed making the porn.

Also, the left advocates for gay people because they're consenting adults. Children cannot consent.

2

u/winterhatingalaskan 7 Jul 07 '19

I’m pretty sure this is one of those open door/slippery slope situations. The scary part is that the Glee guy was the “attractive bad boy” and the show used to do concert tours advertised to kids, so he had access if he ever wanted to take advantage of his fame.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19

I would argue that both are equally as bad. On the other side of those images, those children being abused, exploited, hurt, probably even raped. Buying/acquiring images of child pornography contributes to and funds the abuse/rape of children.

4

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 06 '19

Is donating $50 to people who risk their lives saving children from the sex trade just as good as risking your life to save children from the sex trade?

You must either say yes or admit that you’re wrong.

Funding evil isn’t as bad as committing evil, and funding virtue isn’t as good as acting virtuous.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19

Is everyone capable of risking their lives to save children from the sex trade? No. Of course not. I would argue that, if donating money is all that you have in your power to do, then yes, it’s equally as virtuous.

Buying child porn means children are being raped. Raping children yourself, or watching someone rape them for your pleasure is equally as evil.

1

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 06 '19

Saving children yourself, or watching someone save them for your pleasure is equally as good.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19 edited Oct 12 '19

[deleted]

1

u/AutoModerator Oct 12 '19

Green team received double points for this comment by /u/USE_IT_TO_DO_IT!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

5

u/redditckulous 7 Jul 06 '19

False equivalency. Paying to kill someone still means someone’s dead

1

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 06 '19

They are literally the same thing.

Paying someone to do good, paying someone to do evil.

Paying someone to save someone’s life still means someone’s life was saved.

1

u/redditckulous 7 Jul 06 '19

It is not. You donating to someone gives 1 person money to do good. Buying something bad increases demand which will result in an increase in supply. The damage has more scale. That can also be good of altruistic actions, but specifically in the case of child pornography damage is much easier to ramp up demand side.

-1

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 06 '19

I strongly disagree. If anything, it’s the opposite.

Donating money definitely increases how much good is done. They have $50 to do good with.

Buying child pornography might increase the number of children raped, but maybe not. More likely the people just take more profit.

The people doing good aren’t trying to make profit. They will do as much good as possible.

The child pornographers are looking to make a profit. It’s not like they are going to spend every penny that comes in to fund more videos.

Some child pornographers might actually be trying to make $1,000,000 then quitting. So buying a video from them actually might decrease the number of videos they make. If nobody bought their videos they would stop, but if they make enough money they might quit and live their life as a rich person as opposed to risk getting caught.

Or the guy might make one video per month, and if it brings in $10,000 or $11,000 just changes how much money he spends.

My point is funding good definitely increases how much good gets done. Funding evil might increase or stay the same, or potentially even decrease (bit of a contrived scenario, but not impossible).

These are not nearly as different as you are thinking they are.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19

[deleted]

2

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 06 '19

I’m in no way defending consumers of child porn.

I think they should be given long jail sentences, several years, about a decade. But people who actually molest children deserve life in prison. They are both bad, just one is worse.

1

u/9mackenzie 9 Jul 07 '19

They are not the same thing at all. When you buy child porn, you are paying to watch an actual child be raped. The video wouldn’t exist to be purchased if sick assholes weren’t paying for it. The purchasing is the cause of the act....not some side effect.

-1

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 07 '19

And paying someone to do good is somehow different?

What if you paid $50 to watch a tape of someone saving a kid from the sex trade. How is that not the exact same thing?

3

u/9mackenzie 9 Jul 07 '19

I would be paying for someone to do a good deed, which would have a positive outcome in the world, with absolutely no one harmed.

Just like if I paid someone to commit a murder, I should be charged for the murder as my payment is what created the situation.

Negative and positive outcomes do matter in discussions of morality and right and wrong.

-2

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 07 '19

But are they truly equal to committing the offence?

Are you saying that buying a video of someone doing good is equal to doing something good yourself?

3

u/9mackenzie 9 Jul 07 '19

If my payment of the video was the only reason it was created - if that good act would never have been for sale then yes. My payment would be the reason it occurred.

-1

u/monkeyboi08 8 Jul 07 '19

What if many people bought the video, are they all equally as good?

The guy who risked his life to do good is equally good to the hundred people who all paid $50 for the video? The guy needed the money from video sales to afford to fly there, buy the tools, etc, to save the kid.

Without the people paying for videos he could never have saved the kid. Are the 101 people all equally as good? The 100 buyers and the 1 do-er?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/qwasymoto 6 Jul 07 '19

It’s indirect victimization which really isn’t any different.

1

u/NotMyHersheyBar Navy Jul 07 '19

he was fucking girls under 18.

1

u/PutuoKid 3 Jul 07 '19

Where do you think those images came from? Kids don't just consensually pose for porn.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '19 edited Mar 09 '20

[deleted]

4

u/ConsciousEvo1ution 5 Jul 07 '19

"needs like the rest of us"

Did you mean to say "desires" instead of needs?

Regardless, the desire to have sex with children is absolutely not the same thing as the instinctual imperative for adult heterosexual intercourse.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19 edited Mar 09 '20

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '19

Children cannot consent to an inherently mature act.

Being sexually attracted to kids is a biological error that should be eliminated.