You're special.
Follow along:
No one thinks your argument was correct or persuasive. You're an absolute buffoon.
However, if you construct an argument, even if it's completely unsound or invalid, but it implicates you, negatively, then that necessarily is an admission that that negative portrayal applies to you.
Do you understand? Probably not, since you act like you only have a 3rd grade education.
So, to illustrate ...
Hypothetically, you could argue the following (this is you, writing this argument) ...
McGibbs is from Iowa
Everyone from Iowa is a pathetic loser
...
Now, the necessary implication here ... the only valid conclusion to this argument is ... "McGibbs is a pathetic loser."
That's what YOU would think. That's your argument. You announce you're from Iowa, you say everyone from Iowa is a pathetic loser ... ergo, you think you're a pathetic loser.
Now, this doesn't mean that argument is sound ... because not everyone from Iowa actually is a pathetic loser. But, because you think it it's true, and you implicated yourself negatively in this, that means you ARE a pathetic loser ... even if other Iowans are not pathetic losers. One doesn't need to accept that your assertion that Iowans are all pathetic losers is true to acknowledge that you called yourself a pathetic loser.
Applying that here, you called people pedos ... then you said pedos recognize pedos. Ergo, your argument is that you're a pedo, and you recognize other pedos. So, the negative self-portrayal - that you're a pedo, stands as an admission. But this doesn't mean you're correct that the people you called pedos are pedos. Got it?
In sum, you're a pedo, as you admitted. No one else has been proven to be a pedo ... except you.