Pedophilia, the term, and the condition behind it all describe an attraction towards/a desire to prey on children sexually and/or "romantically". A drawing isn't a child, nor is it a living being to prey on, that's where the first disconnect comes from, and where using it interchangeably doesn't work, as it implies a drawing is functionally the same as a living child, which it isn't. The reasons someone may be attracted to a loli/fictional character and an actual child aren't 1 to 1 just because "both of em are young". Fictional characters in and of themselves are idealized fantasies, they're drawn/written however the creator/viewer wants them to be, not how they adhere to reality. (That's kinda where "traps aren't gay" comes from, a lot of people who like traps aren't gay/casually into guys, they, in fact, just like that specific idea/image of "cute, idealized anime boys that look feminine, or "chicks with dicks".) 9/10 said loli character is simply a "small, "cute" adult" (while the rest are basically just puppies in a human body. Big head/eyes, behavior and all, while providing the same "feel good/"daww" function puppies do). Hell, that's what a majority of anime characters are already, adults with softer, rounder, big eyed, "cute" features and mannerisms. Take that to it's logical extreme and you have a loli. Pedos, on the other hand, are attracted to children because they're smaller, vulnerable and naive, someone they can easily take advantage of to satisfy their desires. There's a reason they're called predators.
-
And that point leads into why loli/shota drawings aren't CP, put simply, they aren't real. CP in and of itself dictates/implies there was a child that was harmed, tortured, raped, murdered, and all around exploited to produce said content. None of that can happen with a drawing/cartoon character (and no, that's not minimalizing, that's exactly what it is.) There's a reason terms like loli/shota, furry, guro, vore, etc exists, they're exaggerations/fantasies disconnected from reality and it's similar acts, not (inherently) trying to imitate/be a proxy for them.
-
As for it being morally disgusting? I mean sure, but that in and of itself isn't a crime, nor is it inherently "wrong". Morals are just personal feelings/guidelines, more often than not made up by people around you rather than yourself. They're subjective feelings and values, not tangible, concrete laws/rules. Now, just because I know im gonna get that one "gotcha" smartass, CLEARLY if we're talking about actions committed against actual people, then yes, it's a different story. Harming, murdering, stealing, etc from another isn't an issue of "well personally I'M ok with it, so whatever". That's not a matter of opinion, those are actions being committed against others. Some random dude doodling a picture neither harms, takes away from, nor effects anyone in it's creation, as such the only "moral crime" it can commit is making someone feel "uncomfortable". That alone doesn't even compare to the crime CP is.
-
>"Both those terms apply just fine, you're just mad because they sound bad"
As it happens, strawquote, I and others reject those terms in the same sense that gamers reject the "sociopath/murder" label, furries the "dogfucker/zoophile", and so on. It doesn't reflect what they're into/why they're into it. It just paints a negative generalization to validate a person's emotional overreaction, one that always seeks to "purge and get rid of" whatever that thing is that offended their emotional/moral sensibilities. Not because it causes any significant harm, or any to begin with, but because "I don't like it, and I personally don't see any value in it, so neither can anyone else, get rid of it".
TL;DR, pedos can be into loli, but being into loli doesn't make you a pedo. Once you introduce fiction/idealized fantasies into the mix, there's too much nuance to make blanket generalizations, that goes for any "taboo" subject in fictional media, and the comparisons drawn for them.