The pedophile's modus operandi of gaslighting - same as the faggot's

[TFS]

I've come to notice a very interesting trend among perverts, specifically how they shape and direct their propaganda. They clearly have an interest in demoralizing and gaslighting their adversaries, and their methods of doing so correlates. It's like the degenerate bastards were given a handbook on how to shame and ridicule normal humans for living a wholesome life.



The butt pirate:

Your overreaction to me wanting to have unnatural relations with other men shows that you're secretly a faggot and trying desperately to hide it.

(Cannot fathom the concept that normal men are repulsed by the thought of other men's assholes)



The pedo who wants to rape young boys:

Your overreaction to me wanting to have sex with young boys, means that your overreacting in order to hide your own interest in young boys

(Cannot fathom the concept that normal men wants to bash in the head of child rapists)



The pedo hunting for young girls responds to a grown woman confronting him:

You're just a bitter woman past your prime who are jealous of the beauty of 11-year old girls.

(Cannot fathom the concept of normal maternal protective instincts)




These talking points keeps popping up again and again, almost as they were scripted.

[Deleted User 2149]

Excellent post and yes indeed, you see these tactics being used all the time.

Also, arguing semantics is a dead giveaway. Eg about whether something is technically legal. A normal (non-pedo) person finds it abhorrent because their moral compass guides them. The pedo will argue semantics and technicalities all day long.

[TFS]

Excellent post and yes indeed, you see these tactics being used all the time.

Also, arguing semantics is a dead giveaway. Eg about whether something is technically legal. A normal (non-pedo) person finds it abhorrent because their moral compass guides them. The pedo will argue semantics and technicalities all day long.

when it comes to splitting words and using semantics, the usual suspect set the (sub)standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld

I absolutely agree, it'a a dead giveaway!
My take is, if it's important to someone to define the differences of hebephilia, pedophilia and pederasty, they're most likely a disgusting child rapist.

[Deleted User 2149]

Excellent post and yes indeed, you see these tactics being used all the time.

Also, arguing semantics is a dead giveaway. Eg about whether something is technically legal. A normal (non-pedo) person finds it abhorrent because their moral compass guides them. The pedo will argue semantics and technicalities all day long.

when it comes to splitting words and using semantics, the usual suspect set the (sub)standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld

I absolutely agree, it'a a dead giveaway!
My take is, if it's important to someone to define the differences of hebephilia, pedophilia and pederasty, they're most likely a disgusting child rapist.

Exactly! Or to use one of my favourite Dutch sayings "Dat is een waarheid als een koe". (It makes no fucking sense in any other language and amuses me no end).

[antiliberalsociety]

Excellent post and yes indeed, you see these tactics being used all the time.

Also, arguing semantics is a dead giveaway. Eg about whether something is technically legal. A normal (non-pedo) person finds it abhorrent because their moral compass guides them. The pedo will argue semantics and technicalities all day long.

Talk.loli in a nutshell. The fact they argue at all is evidence enough. There's nothing to argue. If they're willing to tolerate an innocent kid being exploited, they have no soul and do not care about the survival of mankind. Do you poison plants when they first sprout, citing its legal and arguing against it means you're guilty of it too and/or obsessed with those doing it?

The logic they use is so retarded, it's amazing the lengths they have to stretch to trying to justify it. But they still feel they have to, like it's a duty. It's no different than the abortion crowd, trying to justify murder.

[antiliberalsociety]

Excellent post and yes indeed, you see these tactics being used all the time.

Also, arguing semantics is a dead giveaway. Eg about whether something is technically legal. A normal (non-pedo) person finds it abhorrent because their moral compass guides them. The pedo will argue semantics and technicalities all day long.

when it comes to splitting words and using semantics, the usual suspect set the (sub)standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld

I absolutely agree, it'a a dead giveaway!
My take is, if it's important to someone to define the differences of hebephilia, pedophilia and pederasty, they're most likely a disgusting child rapist.

Those made up terms are no different than the gender definitions - it's a ploy to deflect from the fact it's evil and degenerate. To poison a human being at a young age is to help degrade the overall success of them. The fact they have to try to justify the thought, or somehow deny its wrong says all you need to know about how beneficial to society they are.

All you have to do is apply what they do to other scenarios, and see how well that would play out. Would they be so bold as to go to a beach, taking pictures of other people's kids, then go around saying it's legal and using other, "worse" examples to justify voyeurism? Would they show pictures of nude kids to others in person, to "troll" them? Would they be brave enough to accuse them of being pedophiles if they object to their pedophilia when it's face to face?

These are the questions they tend to avoid. They use every pilpul tactic to dodge it. They know the answer, they know it's self incriminating to answer honestly, so they argue semantics to move the goalposts. They know they'd be assaulted and jailed in real life.

[TFS]

Excellent post and yes indeed, you see these tactics being used all the time.

Also, arguing semantics is a dead giveaway. Eg about whether something is technically legal. A normal (non-pedo) person finds it abhorrent because their moral compass guides them. The pedo will argue semantics and technicalities all day long.

when it comes to splitting words and using semantics, the usual suspect set the (sub)standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld

I absolutely agree, it'a a dead giveaway!
My take is, if it's important to someone to define the differences of hebephilia, pedophilia and pederasty, they're most likely a disgusting child rapist.

Those made up terms are no different than the gender definitions - it's a ploy to deflect from the fact it's evil and degenerate. To poison a human being at a young age is to help degrade the overall success of them. The fact they have to try to justify the thought, or somehow deny its wrong says all you need to know about how beneficial to society they are.

All you have to do is apply what they do to other scenarios, and see how well that would play out. Would they be so bold as to go to a beach, taking pictures of other people's kids, then go around saying it's legal and using other, "worse" examples to justify voyeurism? Would they show pictures of nude kids to others in person, to "troll" them? Would they be brave enough to accuse them of being pedophiles if they object to their pedophilia when it's face to face?

These are the questions they tend to avoid. They use every pilpul tactic to dodge it. They know the answer, they know it's self incriminating to answer honestly, so they argue semantics to move the goalposts. They know they'd be assaulted and jailed in real life.

To poison a human being at a young age is to help degrade the overall success of them.