Pedophilia is an attraction to real children. Lolis are a different type of degenerate. Not saying they're right, just that people who define themselves as attracted to minor human beings should not be classified in the same manner as people who like 'fictional child porn.' I agree lolicon leaves the roots in the mind to become attracted to real children and it is suspiciously close. It's a gray area and it is best to avoid such risque, disturbing material for your own sanity anyways. There are differences between Cream the Rabbit and your neighbor's daughter down the street, and being attracted to either is fucked up, just in a different kind of way. To be put on the same level as a child rapist or even a MAP for that manner just for liking risque artwork is stupid. I don't support lolicons OR pedophiles and believe both should seek some type of effective therapy, I just hate society's blanket statements and broad labels like, "O-ho-ho that man said negro once when he was younger, he's a racist just like the KKK and the lynch mobs, there's no difference whatsoever! If you do any action in the direction of some greater evil, you are that greater evil!"
Edit: loli is not a normalizing/cutesy term like MAP is. Loli simply distinguishes between who's attracted to children - as in figures that exist and have the emotional and physical capability to be harmed - and who's attracted to pixels or art material marks that are structured to resemble one. Yes, art can be used to groom, and it can be used to groom more easily than some other things out there, but even artwork of 18+ consenting furries can be used to groom children. It's not the art that does the sexual abuse, nor is the responsible consumer of said art. A sexual abuser did the sexual abuse. And what's to say that this person is legitimately a pedophile, not just somebody with anger issues that wanted to hurt the child not for sexual gratification, but just to hurt the child? It's all confusing, but that doesn't mean terms like pedophile and pedophile apologist should be thrown around so easily. Hell, I'm probably seen as a pedophile apologist now, but I have no support for terms like MAP and do not support their actions, I believe that they all need help. But then again, who doesn't? Attacking people doesn't change the fact people are fucked in the head. Broad labels don't help in understanding people for who they are, not who the other person vaguely similar to them is. Hate lolis, hate pedophiles, but at least acknowledge their differences.
Two different things, but they have fair potential to be connected. Loli can be sent to a minor to communicate, "Hey minor, you should be more like this minor." It can be used that way to groom minors more easily. But at the same time, a legitimate pedophile I've read about online used fetish images of 18+ characters to groom children. So what's not to say that anything can be used to groom a minor? It's more likely but there are so many things that can make things 'more likely' in the world. Things that are similar but different. Like sex? You're more likely to like sex with children. Like talking? You're more likely to use slurs and coax people into committing suicide. Like animals? You're more likely to be a zoophile. Most anti-loli arguments I've heard are incredibly dumb. I wish people would just be honest and say, "I'm uncomfortable with people who take the concept of a child and sexualize that, it personally creeps me out," instead of saying, "All lolicons are pedophiles and deserve to be imprisoned for just as long as 'real pedophiles' (which I view as the exact same thing as lolis)!"