Harsher than average crowd...

Seriously, opposition usually peaks at 10%, and 5% is more common. Your 2 people (12.5%) are anomalously high - by about 1 person - and 5 (31.25%) swallowing myths is just... off the charts.

OTOH, you're pulling just a hair more active resistance than average, so perhaps it's just more polarized all around.

she said they should all be thrown into forced work camps not killed like the guy.

Due to the economic utility value, this person is much more likely to be gang-affiliated than the gentleman (who would probably shut the fuck up if placed in a situation where he could no longer bully people into submission, by previous tests).

Watch her carefully. You might want to try to find out her daily contacts - in-person and electronic - for network analysis, just in case there's cell involvement.

...but yeah. $he, not the guy, is the threat. The guy would fold - puffing one's self up and bullying others, like he did to the woman who mentioned her own experience, is his primary motivation.

The man that just said all pedophiles should be killed then said "You have been listening to their twisted lies then."

...

The angry guy said "See what he's done. He has twisted you so much..."

This is the usual argumentation method; the woman in question was especially threatening to him, as she actually had the life experience he was trying to steal the mantle of.

His putting you in the position of a fixed, predetermined, and effectively coerced answer was part of the same process; if you're feeling especially like an ass, "ask her what she wanted" would be an effectively fitting answer - you'll note that he was trying to effectively steal the identity, agency, and personhood of everyone in the conversation so that only he mattered - turning the "token victim" into a voice which was not his would have been especially galling.

Oh - and Abby's mom has probably figured things out and was protecting you. ;)

His wife actually tried to get him to cool it as this was actually pretty rude and other people were starting to be a little angry at him.

That's... the usual response antis get when they log off and try this outside.

People don't like thugs. They don't like terror suppression campaigns. 'n generally, they don't like "disagreeing with me invalidates your opinion" as an argumentation tactic, even if they themselves were agreeing - it's just sort of wrong.

Usually, the first two are enough to get these people hated.

The man in question would have probably had his psychological issues (which are more important to him than the topic) exploited for use as a disposable asset. The woman in question brought up financial exploitation, and is far more likely to be an actual danger... but what was interesting to me are some of the stats you left out...

- 1 in 16 has had youthful intergenerational sexual contact, is that correct?

- that 1 in 16 was fairly opposed to the anti squad, yes?

...and last but not least...

At the beginning most people thought that pedophiles just had sexual urges toward children and couldn't care less about them. That changed by the end.

...was the difference openly advocated? I'm thinking it may sound like adjusting to discovering the limits of "safe" dissent - but I don't know if that specific point was debated...

...at any rate, you live in a harder 'hood than average, and that's the timid version of how this usually goes. End the suppression through terror, we do fine.

Thanks for your post.