Without seeing his other posts I'd assume this is a bit. It's just too glaring.

Oh no, abusing children is definitely down there no matter the motivation. Doing it for a different reason doesn't put it in the morally grey somehow.

someone who uses that is definitely a pedofile, right? But if they have no direct contact they wouldn't be one if the definition was "molests children", unless having that counts as molesting.

they hate the child or want to feel powerful. You didn't mention the other angle, but with the attraction definition someone could also be a pedofile without the act, either because they know it's wrong or because they don't have access.
Then there's also CSAM: (cont)

They're not arguing that the post is in some way right, clearly they're just saying that it's not "the very definition" as you commented. Personally I think either definition can be valid.
For your question, someone could sexually abuse a child without being sexually attracted to them because(cont.)

Holzschuh‬ might be saying that pedofilia is defined by the attraction, not the action.

Huh, I didn't notice your reference was so word for word.

Democrats should be doing the Cato speech ender, but with Trump/Republicans/ICE instead of Carthage.

Ross was filming with one hand before shooting Good, so what Cory Booker is saying is that he should've had both hands free to shoot while recording.

They don't see the dissonance, they think Trump is anti-establishment heroically clearing the swamp.

One of them is engineered to kill.

Or a duty. We should have more people in office who believe it's a duty not a privilege.