Deceptive nature just like the Mohammadans you worship - Taking one line out of context.That doesn't contradict anything I've said.
The reply in full does indeed contradict what you are talking about, when you understand the surrounding expansive context of my reply, which clearly illustrates the consequences of your point.
The origins of word paedo = child, philia = love.
Who defines that paedo philia, has to do solely with a strict demarcation line of a abiological physical/chemical manifestation within the body. While those physical/chemical changes can occur in young children - leaving them according to you defined as not-children yet clearly still physically (and emotionally and psychologically) incapable of bearing children themselves.
As already stated very clearly to you. Sex with a child who has puberty at 6 is still paedophilia. The child regardless of puberty has all the physical, emotional, psychological attributes of a child. For anyone to say, well the definition says she is not a child, so, eh, while it is rape, it is not pedophilia.
Incorrect - why?
Because it adheres to the degenerate notion of "sex-with-a-child" and adheres to the fucked up dysfunctional desires of an individual who still sees the pubescent 6 year old, as a child.
Your devious playing around with a word, ignoring the biological realities for children, which is most likely motivated to defend Mohammadans in their proven mass-atrocities in the UK of Muslim gang-rape of children many of whom were vulnerable 14 year olds, is extremely dangerous and puts children at risk as well as adding impetus to the cultural-marxist aim to normalise pedophilia and the abhorrant sexualisation of children at ever younger ages.