Site Title

someoneintheshadow456:

thelovelydoggycatmadi:

sin-loves-blue:

thelovelydoggycatmadi:

poppyseed-cookie:

thelovelydoggycatmadi:

poppyseed-cookie:

thelovelydoggycatmadi:

poppyseed-cookie:

thelovelydoggycatmadi:

poppyseed-cookie:

thelovelydoggycatmadi:

poppyseed-cookie:

discoursecookie:

spooky-heart-loves-cookies:

Child cookies

I’m both surprised and quite disappointed that this fight is still going.

Stop shipping adult/more matured cookies with the child cookies. Using a “headcanon” of yours doesn’t help either. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THEIR AGE CLASS JUST BECAUSE YOU THINK IT’S “CUTE”. And if you edit with official sprites that helps even less since it’s obvious the other is a minor.

Some of you might use the excuse “They’re cookies, they don’t have age.”

Yes they are cookies but cookies with age classes. If there are elderly cookies like Cream Cookie then there WILL be child cookies as well. Unless you think shipping the elderly cookies with the younger cookies is fine, how about you tell me about that hm?

I’ve seen Herb being shipped with two minor cookies now and it’s terrible. “Oh but where does it say Herb is an adult?” His tea barista costume. The fact that he works at a tea shop is basically canon and you do need to be at least 18 to own one. He technically has the body and mindset of someone 18 years or older.

What’s that? You prefer to continue this bad habit and start fights about it while causing drama around you? I don’t know what else to say to you other than leave the fandom if you’re too stubborn to understand that shipping adult-like and child-like figures is wrong and ruins the reputation of this community.

I love Cookie Run, I love the characters and I love Devsisters. But I just can’t stand these arguments and want it all to just stop. Understand and learn from your mistakes or leave. Let this fandom stay wholesome without things like these.

Thank you for taking your time to read this, your time is cherished by me ♡

Oh, come on. Don’t make me laugh.

Do you really, really think “pedophilic” ships are the reason everyone speaks ill of the Western side of the Cookie Run fandom?

Most Asian fans avoid you like the plague because you guys tell people to choke on glass for liking a stupid-ass fictional pairing and go editing their art without permission in order to supposedly fix it. Even people who don’t play the game think you are batshit crazy for caring that much about the rights of (yes, I’m going to say it) a bunch of cartoony cookies.

Stop living on a cloud. Your poor and entitled behavior is the real problem.

If you want less “drama” within the fanbase, then start minding your own business

So… you’re a pedophile and supporting it because “cookies don’t have rights” and “disliking a ship is way worse than ‘pedophilia’” (you even provided airquotes to prove that you pretty much support it)

I’ll bet this person doesn’t bash on people for their ships. We don’t feel ENTITLED to tell you that pedophilia is wrong it’s literally illegal and gross, I don’t wanna have to put reasons why pedophilia is bad on a COOKIE RUN BLOG, people should know this stuff by now, you could literally get banned now for doing this.

That’s not what they said at all. They just said there was more to it then just the pedophillia thing. I honestly don’t blame the Asian fandom for avoiding us. A lot of you guys argue about stupid shit like cookies genders, skin tones, and head cannons. No one said anything about supporting pedophillia. Or how supporting harassment over ships is worse then pedophillia. That was just a wild fucking assumption on your part. Which is another reason why people avoid most western fandoms. Because people on tumblr get fucking set off by the slightest thing.

I’m not saying pedophilia is the only problem, I don’t care if some people avoid the fandom lol, but the fact that they put air quotes around pedophilia and say “it’s not a big problem mind your own business” implies that they support pedophilia which is wrong. It’s much more wrong than the OTHER things, which are still bad, but not as bad as freakin supporting pedophilia in a fandom for a game for kids.

Considering they liked my version of the post saying otherwise them supporting pedophillia is probably not the case. Implication is not supporting. I do think they could’ve worded themselves better. But no one here is supporting anything about pedophillia. I think they also meant that your headcannons on the cookies age doesn’t make you right about there age. If your gonna give me a bunch a proof on why before you do that: I just wanna say if your gonna try and dictate what cookies ages are you should probably look at all works by the devs not just the games. If Brave is a minor technically Ninja is too. Because if you look at the comics you see them going to school together. So if your not gonna listen to us you should at least look at the comics as reference because they at least go into more detail.

I am all for looking into the canon for ages (heck I was one of the people who argued that Grapefruit wasn’t canonically a child, tho now I believe she is a child because she had a crayon drawing but that’s still only implied but that’s still important to note)

But I’m just gonna say it for the thousandth time THE COMICS ARENT FREAKING CANON. I can understand that some people might think that they are but they aren’t. I’m sorry if I sound rude but sometimes I see people DENYING CANON PROOF THAT WIZARD IS A CHILD because in the NON-CANON comics he is an old person. It gets annoying.

Also they might’ve liked your version of the post cuz you defended them, idk. They didn’t understand what I said apparently but I didn’t know how to explain that saying pedophilia isn’t a problem is bad.

Then like…. any age for the cookies are valid. (And before anyone jumps on my ass I’m just gonna go on record that’s not an excuse to draw gross shit of cookies like peppermint. But for arguements sake I’m referring to cookies like Brave and Bright. Don’t use this as an example to defend actual pedophillia amoung the fandom.) Why is this even a post to begin with? If the comics aren’t cannon then technically most ships aren’t pedophillic. It’s hard with games like cookie run because we aren’t given much to work with in the first place. “Oh but there’s edvidence for this and this,” well like. That doesn’t CONFIRM anything. Those are all just assumptions. Everyone thinks differently and has a different version of how to think logically. And even if the comics aren’t cannon I still think they should still be CONSIDERED. I’m not saying we have to follow them beat for beat. But I’m saying we should take everything into consideration. And then come to our OWN conclusions. Even if we all don’t agree. I honestly think Brave and Bright are in there earlier 20’s late Teens. (Probably 18) because they seem so anime protagonist leader esc not immature but not also fully developed at least in my imagining. Also what small child starts a freakin zombie apocalypse resistance? (I get it’s a kids game about cookies but eh hey childrens media can have adult lead) Just my take on it. You make have your own. Anyway: TLDR just be careful on what you think is “pedophillic,” and what’s not. I think that’s what everyone’s trying to get at here.

And in the case of the hole “oh he just liked it because you defended him,” well I also criticized him in the same thread which he also liked. And again I’ll say it here again: he didn’t word himself all that great. He could’ve gone a much better route of saying what needed to be said. But it also doesn’t give you an excuse to make an assumption like this. When discussing topics like this it’s best to look and think about it throughly. It can be very damaging to a persons image. Whether you like them or not it’s not ok to do that to someone.

Okay okay, as long as we agree pedophilia is bad, that’s fine, BUT you’re wrong about brave and bright:

This is an OFFICIAL list of cookies that are children. The only cookie that are 100% confirmed canon children. Please keep it in mind since I can tell you didn’t already see it. Yes I don’t understand how GingerBrave is a child either since he was the first cookie out of the oven but. I won’t argue with canon.

I’m sorry- I can’t read Japanese/Korean you gonna have to tell me what it says fam I’m kinda dumb- if it states there age fine I guess? I can take that seriously enough. But I still think even if they aren’t cannon the comics should be taken into consideration on why people would ship something because there still a work…. by the team. And if I’m mistaken there still liscened by the team???? Ehh??? I wouldn’t get it if it wasn’t. So I wouldn’t get to mad if someone ships something that maybe by your thought process is pedophillic…. I think that those people are just as valid. And aren’t trying to MAKE it pedophillic or are trying to be harmful.

And just for future reference I think it’s better if this is solid proof. To show this and maybe give context if this came from the dev forums or something. Because not everyone KNOWS about the dev forums. And not everyone read them. I’d just give this context first before you give someone the label of a “pedophile supporter,” I just don’t think it’s fair.

And just another quick thing I feel likes it’s rude to completely dismiss the comics and people by go by it’s cannon. Like it’s still a a piece of art just like the game that people put love and effort into and enjoy. It’s ok if you don’t like it but…. I just find it wrong to pass people off as something there not just because they support and go by something you don’t like…. again as long as there not trying to push pedophillia it’s fine… I don’t think it matters what cannon you go by… even if it’s not officially cannon. It’s still a cannon of sorts that someone made. And you also haven’t stated where they said the comics weren’t cannon- whose to say there both not cannon to some degree? But I could be wrong about that too.

Tbh man idk what it says either, but it’s some sort of junior cookies challenge that was on an official newsletter or something, it’s on the wiki and stuff.

And like I do not like to assume people are pedophiles but like. Their wording was SO SUPER CONVINCING THAT THEY COULD SUPPORT PEDOPHILIA that I’m not even entirely convinced they don’t since they never argued against my claim that they were a pedophile but I’m just gonna leave it be unless they speak up.

And yeah I understand people could do stuff based off the comics. That makes sense. As long as it’s stated it’s based off the comic’s canon there shouldn’t be a big problem?

As for where I heard the comics weren’t canon, I heard it on here somewhere I think, like devsisters gave the permission for whatever company makes the comics to make those comics, but it was just permission to make comics not like. It’s a canon story. I know that’s not a very solid source lol but even just looking at how many contradictions there are between the main game and the comics you can sort of tell. I accept the comics as an AU tho, like a sort of canon AU yknow

Technically they did argue they just said you jumped to a conclusion. Which was just another example of poor wording and them just not exampling themselves. But I don’t think that’s what they were trying to convey. Again with this kinda thing you have to look at it from every angle before you through around a claim like that.

And yeah the reason I was asking for proof on if comics were cannon or not. Well if there aren’t to some degree then…. what’s the point of there exisistence? If people aren’t supposed to take them seriously to some extent and follow there cannon- Then why even pay money for them to be made at all?

Sup just poppin in here for a quick hot second, from what I know from Hanja run it’s supposed be an educational series for kids, I believe Devsis stated on the forums or somewhere else that it’s not canon, a lot of the comics can be confusing and the creators for them actually just jumped the wagon and made their own stories up, after all wouldn’t they reference this or bring it up? Devsis kinda just leaves them alone, they never promote it or anything it’s just up there floating, not to mention in a lot of comics they tend to switch ages around (in one Fire spirit turned Pistachio into a child so he could make her love him, which really weird)

There are a few different series for the cookie run comics two are educational based. (On science and one math) and the other is called Cookie Run Survival I believe. and this is the one people prefer (for obvious reasons) from what I could find on the forum there was only other people saying “oh it’s not cannon,” but not giving any context or proof as to why. And I’m not saying they are completely cannon, Or anything or I disbelieve either of you. But this just raises more questions of why they let these decisions on these cookies ages pass…. like because this could obviously cause problems amoung the fandom. Yikes. I hope that this is explained in the future to some extent. Cause this is… yeesh…

HOLY SHIT

You guys are wasting your time policing people on the internet shipping fictional cookies in a video game when actual pedophiles are running free right now molesting and grooming REAL CHILDREN.

You guys are calling people pedos for shipping fictional cookies in a video game when there are REAL CSA SURVIVORS who have suffered real pain and you’re using their suffering just to save your precious fee fees over FICTION.

SHUT UP. You’re disrespecting real csa victims and abuse survivors and turning the word pedo into a joke.

When the boy kept crying wolf, eventually people stopped caring even as a real wolf ate their sheep in front of them. YOU are the blogger who cried pedo and eventually when a real child gets hurt, nobody is going to help them because you’re perpetuating this shit.

You should be ashamed of yourselves. No wonder the Japanese fandom of this game can’t stand you.

@thelovelydoggycatmadi

I just read the article and you conveniently left out the last three paragraphs:

Criminalising conduct is generally justified on the basis of preventing harm to others (after John Stuart Mill), hence why possessing real child abuse images would be a crime as they represent documentary evidence of real harm caused to children. But unless scientific evidence becomes available that establishes that possessing non-photographic images leads to physical offences, this is difficult to establish.

So critics argue that the real outcome – and even aim – appears to be to police thoughts and fantasies, rather than protect real children from harm. Naturally this raises issues of privacy and freedom of thought.

The US tried enacting similar legislation almost 20 years ago through the Child Pornography Prevention Act 1996, but the relevant provisions were eventually struck down by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The court felt that as there was no harm caused to real children

Eventually further legislation arrived in the form of the PROTECT Act 2003, which was much more narrowly tailored to criminalise non-photographic pornographic images of children, but only if they are indistinguishable from actual images of a minor.

Perhaps the UK should have followed a similar path and drafted more specific legislation that makes possession a criminal offence based on the resemblance and likeness of the image to a photograph of a real child – something now possible with advances in 3D modelling and graphics software. This would have provided sufficient justification for the harm argument and, rather than creating a [strict liability possession offence](http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability (notwithstanding the defences available within the Act), it would have encouraged prosecution only where there is a realistic prospect of the possessor going on to cause real harm to real children.