And there's a distinction between, "drawing on paper with symbological representation," and "a child." If you have have sex with toy shaped like a vagina, you haven't raped any woman just because cis female human beings bear sexual organs resembling the symbological prop the sex toy represents. No pedophilia has been committed because the person in question has not lusted after a child. You cannot be a pedophile and masturbate to a drawing. Even symbologically, they only represent those things in the abstract.
So again, "This is not a pipe."
And while yes, pedophiles can do an act, the fact a pedophile can engage in the act does not make the act itself pedophilia, especially not when engaged by other people. It would make it a pedophile engaging in the act, not making the act itself pedophilic.
You don't have to be a child rapist in order to be a pedophile, no, but you do have to desire human children. If there's no sexual attraction to living, existing human minors, then there's no pedophilia involved here. Symbols and drawings are not real. Therefore, drawings of children and drawings of murder are neither pedophilic or anti-social. No crime is being committed here. Loli/shota are not sexualization of actual children, which is the definition of pedophilia. They're sexualization of abstracts and fantasies and fiction. Pedophilia requires an an actual human child victim.
And illegal burden of proof reversal. Anything that which is not inherently harmful to another human being is legal and benign. The argument of morality ends where objectivity begins, and unless YOU can put forwards proof that violent video games, novels, fiction of any kind contributes to violence and murder and theft in the real world, unless you can PROVE that someone drawing Rule 34 of South Park, Rugrats, Teen Titans or Muppet babies characters in sexual positions or situations directly harms real life children, then you have no argument.
I do not need to prove sexualization of fictional characters is good. It's neither bad nor good. It's a non-crime and a non-harm. No more than drawing a picture of a politician in the privacy of your own home and burning it is a threat on their life. It is you that needs to prove the objective harm caused by people whom consume loli and shota.
Much like with table sugar, pedophiles that already harm underaged people already exist and operate, whether they have access to loli and shota or other illustrated pornography of depictions of underaged characters, or not. You cannot therefore say, "pedophiles like loli and shota, therefore anyone that likes loli or shota is a pedophile." Because people whom exclusively like loli and shota illustrations exist, and the burden of proof is on you to show and demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that all of them are those that could or would even lust after real life children; we aren't even talking about those that experience those urges but REFUSE to act on them. You have to prove everybody that consumes and masturbates to loli and shota are also people that lust after REAL LIFE children, not just exclusively illustrations.
Unless you can do that, you have no argument. Whether it's good or nothing at all is irrelevant; it doesn't have to be /good/ to be valid. YOU have to find the HARM in something in order to ban it or raise alarm flags.
You have your work cut out for you.