Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

shamone wrote: In the world we currently live, I dont think we can assume that if our time was coming to an end and the only way we could survive is the subjegation of a lesser species we would not tkae that option.

Look at animals for breeding, they are practically slaves, they have no choice in the matter and they are seen as lesser beings by many. Thats how the cons may view us

Thats a fair aurgument. At times of desperation an possible extinction, one can be driven to do things that one wouldn't normally do. But at the same time, one can't say for sure that we would take that route. we have grown tremeduously as people, as human beings in the past 100 years. The cival rights movment is good example of this. Are we perfect as a whole? No. And we never will be. But we have moved forward, and history is suggesting that we are (for the most part) continuing to move forward.

RhA wrote: It's not a matter if Shamone is okay with it, he's just pointing out that's in plausible for another spieces to think that way.

The human/animal comparison is a very good one. Do you hunt for your food or do you buy it in a store?

I don't think Shadowman is saying that it isn't plausible, just that StarscreamGaGa was suggesting that if presented with same situation as the cons, that we would undoubtfully destroy the lesser speices and/or use them as slave labor to rebuild for our way of life isn't accurate if you solely basing this ussuption on history alone. Were taught history so we can learn from our mistakes and not duplicate them.

As far as the food aurgument, i don't believe thats fair. If the purpose is hunting for food and clothing, then thats an aurgument of survial. If were seen as being put down for this, then whats the difference between us hunting them for food and animals hunting other animals for food?

civil rights movement maybe

but look at what we do through out the world. Look at how we treat species lesser than us.

and this at a time when their death and destruction isnt necessary for our survival. Imagine how we would treat them if it was a fight for survival

there is no difference in us and other animals thats my point exactly. They kill for their survival, we do the same now even when we dont need to kill to survive. And how do we get this food, by imprisoning animals in a form of slavery, and then breeding them into a live of slavery.

Im no vegan or anything, just using the animal thing as a comparison to how cons can view humanity

Except animals aren't intelligent species, at least not the ones we eat. Sentient, sure, sapient, no.

this is exactly my point. you have decided what species should be subjagated and enslaved because of your interpretation of their sapience.

Now the bots themselves call us primitive and violent, so how would the cons see us.

You are looking at it from a humanist perspective where we are the dominant species.

And in that role we have seen this world and taken and abused it to fit our means

shamone wrote:Except animals aren't intelligent species, at least not the ones we eat. Sentient, sure, sapient, no.

this is exactly my point. you have decided what species should be subjagated and enslaved because of your interpretation of their sapience.

They aren't sapient. It's not interpretation, they just aren't. There's no two ways about this.

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:Except animals aren't intelligent species, at least not the ones we eat. Sentient, sure, sapient, no.

this is exactly my point. you have decided what species should be subjagated and enslaved because of your interpretation of their sapience.

They aren't sapient. It's not interpretation, they just aren't. There's no two ways about this.

I've eaten pretty smart animals before. Just sayin'..

Starscream GaGa wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:As far as the food aurgument, i don't believe thats fair. If the purpose is hunting for food and clothing, then thats an aurgument of survial. If were seen as being put down for this, then whats the difference between us hunting them for food and animals hunting other animals for food?

The Decepticons needed the humans for survival. Is that any different?

I'm not a Decepticon sympathizer, I'm just throwing it out there.

Yes, it is. The difference is we inhabit the same planet that we hunt food on to survive. We need to eat. Thats a fact.
The decepticons destroyed their own planet due to there greed for power. They then proceed to another planet for resources to rebuild. They did not need our slave labor. They had been living on our planet in disguise for years as so did the Autobots. The Autbots found a way to co-exshist with humans that did not envolve us as slaves. There is no reason the decepticons could not do the same.
one would think that if a certain way of life (aka the decepticons greed for power and the resulting war) destroyed your home planet, that maybe you should be rethinking about your cause. Its does no good to rebuild if your doomed to just repeat your mistakes.

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:Except animals aren't intelligent species, at least not the ones we eat. Sentient, sure, sapient, no.

this is exactly my point. you have decided what species should be subjagated and enslaved because of your interpretation of their sapience.

They aren't sapient. It's not interpretation, they just aren't. There's no two ways about this.

by the standards that humanity has established.

we have decided they are below us and not worthy of freedom.

the decepticons have made the same decision about us

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:As far as the food aurgument, i don't believe thats fair. If the purpose is hunting for food and clothing, then thats an aurgument of survial. If were seen as being put down for this, then whats the difference between us hunting them for food and animals hunting other animals for food?

The Decepticons needed the humans for survival. Is that any different?

I'm not a Decepticon sympathizer, I'm just throwing it out there.

Yes, it is. The difference is we inhabit the same planet that we hunt food on to survive. We need to eat. Thats a fact.
The decepticons destroyed their own planet due to there greed for power. They then proceed to another planet for resources to rebuild. They did not need our slave labor. They had been living on our planet in disguise for years as so did the Autobots. The Autbots found a way to co-exshist with humans that did not envolve us as slaves. There is no reason the decepticons could not do the same.
one would think that if a certain way of life (aka the decepticons greed for power and the resulting war) destroyed your home planet, that maybe you should be rethinking about your cause. Its does no good to rebuild if your doomed to just repeat your mistakes.

do we meed t eat meat

have we not been destroying our planet, look at the climate, look at the ice caps, look at the rain foresr

shamone wrote:by the standards that humanity has established.

Well if any other species would like to add in their thoughts, I'd be happy to hear it.

shamone wrote:we have decided they are below us and not worthy of freedom.

Of course we did! And we earned that right, too! We didn't just drop in, decide we were best and take over. We started as a bunch of monkeys and fought and clawed and earned our place as the dominate species.

shamone wrote:do we meed t eat meat

Sure. But then if you want to go the whole "Eating meat is wrong" stock argument, you're going to have to apply that to every species. In which sense, Lion's are jerks. And Dolphins are thrill-killing serial rapists. (Look it up, seriously)

shamone wrote:have we not been destroying our planet, look at the climate, look at the ice caps, look at the rain foresr

Ah, this old stock argument. Every time someone pulls it out, they conveniently forget how we're desperately trying to undo the damage we did, once we realized how serious it was.

shamone wrote: do we meed t eat meat

Do animals need to eat meet? Like Shadow man said, would you consider Lions, Tigers and Bears (Oh My!! ) jerks in the same sence?

shamone wrote:have we not been destroying our planet, look at the climate, look at the ice caps, look at the rain foresr

1.- We have realised our mistakes and are working to correct them (Please go back to my point about history)

2.- we are not trying to find a sub par planet and use there population as slave labor.

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:by the standards that humanity has established.

Well if any other species would like to add in their thoughts, I'd be happy to hear it.

shamone wrote:we have decided they are below us and not worthy of freedom.

Of course we did! And we earned that right, too! We didn't just drop in, decide we were best and take over. We started as a bunch of monkeys and fought and clawed and earned our place as the dominate species.

shamone wrote:do we meed t eat meat

Sure. But then if you want to go the whole "Eating meat is wrong" stock argument, you're going to have to apply that to every species. In which sense, Lion's are jerks. And Dolphins are thrill-killing serial rapists. (Look it up, seriously)

shamone wrote:have we not been destroying our planet, look at the climate, look at the ice caps, look at the rain foresr

Ah, this old stock argument. Every time someone pulls it out, they conveniently forget how we're desperately trying to undo the damage we did, once we realized how serious it was.

you miss the point there. Of course they cant add to it, they are "lesser" species than us. But should we condemn them to slavery, butchery and pain because they are lesser. Because they have not yet developed the ability to express.

so the cons have developed and fought to be the new dominant species. do they have the same right

i never said eating meat was the problem as such but they way we mass farm it, enslaving animals doing it. animals for the most part kill when they have to eat, they dont farm the animals or enslave them

the stock argument is the factual argument. Cons are trying to undo the damage they did

5150 Cruiser wrote:

shamone wrote: do we meed t eat meat

Do animals need to eat meet? Like Shadow man said, would you consider Lions, Tigers and Bears (Oh My!! ) jerks in the same sence?

shamone wrote:have we not been destroying our planet, look at the climate, look at the ice caps, look at the rain foresr

1.- We have realised our mistakes and are working to correct them (Please go back to my point about history)

2.- we are not trying to find a sub par planet and use there population as slave labor.

do animals enslave other animals. And some animals can only eat meat, they have no choice, due to evolution. and the ecological system needs carnivores and omnivores, underwise the balance is maladjusted.

you claim we have learnt by our history. check oil and other fossil fuel consumption and tell me what we have learnt. Look at the drilling in Alaska.

For years there have been studies to find a suitable planet for relocation. A lot of the NASA missions were based around this. Remember plans for a mars base. This is not just for science, but due to the damage we have caused. Why has nbot been continued, cost and infeasibility.

Our first steo was not to amend our behavior but find an external solution

SlyTF1 wrote:The first movie's moral was that you can't expect a victory without sacrifice. Even though the movie never really went out of it's way to show you that.

ROTF had kind of a moral that nothing can stop you from fulfilling your destiny (even death). Even if you do die, it was still your destiny to do so and nothing can stop it.

And DOTM had one of "How far is too far?" It showed both humans and Cybertronians taking drastic measures to save their worlds from extinction. It was really a reflection of the two civilizations.

I really think these movies are deep to an extent.

I think the first film is very deep and has a really nice center. While it's hip to rag on the movies as far as plot goes, there's something... kind of magical about it, for lack of a better word. There's a child like innocence to the flick. It feels like ET or Raiders of the Lost Ark.

That goes completely off the tracks with the second film, but I think the third helped to relaign things quite a bit. It's quite a bit darker, but that's okay. It makes sense, given the Decepticons intentions.

I'd like to see the next film tone down the darkness a little and get back to the wonder, though. Something closer to the first film.

Marcdachamp wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:The first movie's moral was that you can't expect a victory without sacrifice. Even though the movie never really went out of it's way to show you that.

ROTF had kind of a moral that nothing can stop you from fulfilling your destiny (even death). Even if you do die, it was still your destiny to do so and nothing can stop it.

And DOTM had one of "How far is too far?" It showed both humans and Cybertronians taking drastic measures to save their worlds from extinction. It was really a reflection of the two civilizations.

I really think these movies are deep to an extent.

I think the first film is very deep and has a really nice center. While it's hip to rag on the movies as far as plot goes, there's something... kind of magical about it, for lack of a better word. There's a child like innocence to the flick. It feels like ET or Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Maybe that's why I don't like it much. Too much innocence.

shamone wrote:you miss the point there. Of course they cant add to it, they are "lesser" species than us. But should we condemn them to slavery, butchery and pain because they are lesser. Because they have not yet developed the ability to express.

We didn't either. We earned our right to rule this planet.

shamone wrote:so the cons have developed and fought to be the new dominant species. do they have the same right

No, they have their own planet. But they decided they wanted ours so they came to trash that to make their own planet nicer.

shamone wrote:i never said eating meat was the problem as such but they way we mass farm it, enslaving animals doing it. animals for the most part kill when they have to eat, they dont farm the animals or enslave them

And yet starvation is still a serious problem. Funny that. Likewise, look at the deer. We actually have to hunt and kill them each year; it's been proven that they don't know when to quit, and if we don't hunt them they'll overpopulate and end up starving themselves to death.

shamone wrote:the stock argument is the factual argument. Cons are trying to undo the damage they did

No, it's just the one that keeps getting parroted while ignoring new facts. The cons are trying to fix Cybertron by destroying Earth. We're trying to fix Earth without even going to other planets.

shamone wrote:you claim we have learnt by our history. check oil and other fossil fuel consumption and tell me what we have learnt. Look at the drilling in Alaska.

That fuel emissions are currently a necessary evil while we are desperately looking for alternative fuel sources.

shamone wrote:For years there have been studies to find a suitable planet for relocation. A lot of the NASA missions were based around this. Remember plans for a mars base. This is not just for science, but due to the damage we have caused. Why has nbot been continued, cost and infeasibility.

Except there's no other usable planet that we can actually travel to. Mars is a dead rock, we've known that for years.

shamone wrote:Our first steo was not to amend our behavior but find an external solution

Okay, so instead of amending out behavior regarding the treatment of our planet, we instead went looking for a solution...which, when applied, would amend our behavior regarding the treatment of our planet.

You could make a Vulcan's head explode with that kind of logic, you know that?

SlyTF1 wrote:Maybe that's why I don't like it much. Too much innocence.

Yeah, I can understand that, but sometimes a little light helps balance out the dark, you know?

And I say this as someone who really loved DotM.

shamone wrote: do animals enslave other animals. And some animals can only eat meat, they have no choice, due to evolution. and the ecological system needs carnivores and omnivores, underwise the balance is maladjusted.

I still don't see it as slavery. Many of these animals are here as our food. Just as some animals are other animals food. IN our evolution we have simpley found better ways to channel our food then going outside with a big stick and beating the crap out of them. Bottom line we still are eating what we capture. were not breeding them to slave labor to rebuild our detroyed land.

shamone wrote:vyou claim we have learnt by our history. check oil and other fossil fuel consumption and tell me what we have learnt. Look at the drilling in Alaska.

Change is not going to happen over night. We are still going to be drilling for several more years before alternitive energy gets more popular. Thats just the way things will have to be intill more people get on board.

shamone wrote:For years there have been studies to find a suitable planet for relocation. A lot of the NASA missions were based around this. Remember plans for a mars base. This is not just for science, but due to the damage we have caused. Why has nbot been continued, cost and infeasibility.

Our first steo was not to amend our behavior but find an external solution

A couple things..

1.- I never believed this. Because of some pullutants people actually thought about relocating planets. Sounds more like consiracy therey than anything. One doesn't need a Mars base to realsie that this just isn't feasible. But for aurguments sake lets say it was. Its still not the same...


2.-Mars is a dormant planet. we would not be enslaving another species to rebuild ours nor would we be pushing one off their own planet.

5150 Cruiser wrote:1.- I never believed this. Because of some pullutants people actually thought about relocating planets. Sounds more like consiracy therey than anything. One doesn't need a Mars base to realsie that this just isn't feasible. But for aurguments sake lets say it was. Its still not the same...


2.-Mars is a dormant planet. we would not be enslaving another species to rebuild ours nor would we be pushing one off their own planet.

Not to mention, it's completely absurd. No one at NASA is dumb enough to consider Mars a suitable replacement for anything. It's not capable of supporting us, the planet is entirely dead. It's like replacing a dying car with an already broken-down one.

Shadowman wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:1.- I never believed this. Because of some pullutants people actually thought about relocating planets. Sounds more like consiracy therey than anything. One doesn't need a Mars base to realsie that this just isn't feasible. But for aurguments sake lets say it was. Its still not the same...


2.-Mars is a dormant planet. we would not be enslaving another species to rebuild ours nor would we be pushing one off their own planet.

Not to mention, it's completely absurd. No one at NASA is dumb enough to consider Mars a suitable replacement for anything. It's not capable of supporting us, the planet is entirely dead. It's like replacing a dying car with an already broken-down one.

this is for 5150 as well


... the goal isn't just scientific exploration ... it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time ... In the long run a single-planet species will not survive ... If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely conceivable. We're in the infancy of it. ... I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making habitats on asteroids ... I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond.

— Michael D. Griffin[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization

so thats that put to bed

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:you miss the point there. Of course they cant add to it, they are "lesser" species than us. But should we condemn them to slavery, butchery and pain because they are lesser. Because they have not yet developed the ability to express.

We didn't either. We earned our right to rule this planet.

shamone wrote:so the cons have developed and fought to be the new dominant species. do they have the same right

No, they have their own planet. But they decided they wanted ours so they came to trash that to make their own planet nicer.

shamone wrote:i never said eating meat was the problem as such but they way we mass farm it, enslaving animals doing it. animals for the most part kill when they have to eat, they dont farm the animals or enslave them

And yet starvation is still a serious problem. Funny that. Likewise, look at the deer. We actually have to hunt and kill them each year; it's been proven that they don't know when to quit, and if we don't hunt them they'll overpopulate and end up starving themselves to death.

shamone wrote:the stock argument is the factual argument. Cons are trying to undo the damage they did

No, it's just the one that keeps getting parroted while ignoring new facts. The cons are trying to fix Cybertron by destroying Earth. We're trying to fix Earth without even going to other planets.

shamone wrote:you claim we have learnt by our history. check oil and other fossil fuel consumption and tell me what we have learnt. Look at the drilling in Alaska.

That fuel emissions are currently a necessary evil while we are desperately looking for alternative fuel sources.

shamone wrote:For years there have been studies to find a suitable planet for relocation. A lot of the NASA missions were based around this. Remember plans for a mars base. This is not just for science, but due to the damage we have caused. Why has nbot been continued, cost and infeasibility.

Except there's no other usable planet that we can actually travel to. Mars is a dead rock, we've known that for years.

shamone wrote:Our first steo was not to amend our behavior but find an external solution

Okay, so instead of amending out behavior regarding the treatment of our planet, we instead went looking for a solution...which, when applied, would amend our behavior regarding the treatment of our planet.

You could make a Vulcan's head explode with that kind of logic, you know that?

1. earned our place. By evolution, a process pretty much out of our control. The fact that we got lucky by coincidence should mean we should respect our position and be humkble in our fortune. Not declare we rule the world.

2. starvation is a problem, due to commercial farming and miuse of arable lands. You honestly think there the reason there is famines is due to lack of food. Come on use your common sense here.

3. a necessary evil which we refuse to use. Sure when the world is destroyed then hey we had no choice right !

4. We have studied other planets for colonization. If the time came where it was a critical decision and a lesser species populated the planet and their destruction was necessary for ours would we decide to expire. Evolution says otherwise

5. you mistake the logic. The first thing we did when faced with ele event was find another planet, not change our behavior. thats my point

shamone wrote:1. earned our place. By evolution, a process pretty much out of our control. The fact that we got lucky by coincidence should mean we should respect our position and be humkble in our fortune. Not declare we rule the world.

But we DO rule the world. I don't see cats making any major decisions in society.

shamone wrote:2. starvation is a problem, due to commercial farming and miuse of arable lands. You honestly think there the reason there is famines is due to lack of food. Come on use your common sense here.

Well, considering "famine" actually means "lack of food" I suppose so.

shamone wrote:3. a necessary evil which we refuse to use. Sure when the world is destroyed then hey we had no choice right !

Yes...we refuse to use fuel, the necessary evil I mentioned.

shamone wrote:4. We have studied other planets for colonization. If the time came where it was a critical decision and a lesser species populated the planet and their destruction was necessary for ours would we decide to expire. Evolution says otherwise

Evolution says we turn into a space-faring planet-conquering species? I don't know which evolutionary step that was. When, exactly, did we wipe out an entire species for our convenience?

shamone wrote:5. you mistake the logic. The first thing we did when faced with ele event was find another planet, not change our behavior. thats my point

And whoever made that decision was an idiot, and no one listened to him. There aren't any other habitable planets in this system. The next star out? Consider this, Mars is about .5 AU away from Earth, and the trip is estimated to take several months. Proxima Centauri, the star next door, is about 268,000 AU out.

shamone wrote: this is for 5150 as well


... the goal isn't just scientific exploration ... it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time ... In the long run a single-planet species will not survive ... If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely conceivable. We're in the infancy of it. ... I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making habitats on asteroids ... I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond.

— Michael D. Griffin[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization

so thats that put to bed

I have no doubts that in 200 years time we will be able to colinise on other planets. But thats not the aurgument.
The aurgument is that if this were to ocure, (Such as the mars example), we wouldn't be pushing another speices off, or enslaving them to rebuild our world. The decepticons were.

SlyTF1 wrote:
Maybe that's why I don't like it much. Too much innocence.

There's no such thing.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:
Maybe that's why I don't like it much. Too much innocence.

There's no such thing.

You're right. There's no such thing as innocence.

SlyTF1 wrote:

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:
Maybe that's why I don't like it much. Too much innocence.

There's no such thing.

You're right. There's no such thing as innocence.

Oh, clever. Gimme innocence over grimdark any day of the year.

5150 Cruiser wrote:

shamone wrote: this is for 5150 as well


... the goal isn't just scientific exploration ... it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time ... In the long run a single-planet species will not survive ... If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely conceivable. We're in the infancy of it. ... I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making habitats on asteroids ... I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond.

— Michael D. Griffin[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization

so thats that put to bed

I have no doubts that in 200 years time we will be able to colinise on other planets. But thats not the aurgument.
The aurgument is that if this were to ocure, (Such as the mars example), we wouldn't be pushing another speices off, or enslaving them to rebuild our world. The decepticons were.

this is jsut quoted to make a lie of the statement that you said it was a myth

and if we needed to, would we let our existence die out in order to preserve a species we deem lesser than us

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:1. earned our place. By evolution, a process pretty much out of our control. The fact that we got lucky by coincidence should mean we should respect our position and be humkble in our fortune. Not declare we rule the world.

But we DO rule the world. I don't see cats making any major decisions in society.

shamone wrote:2. starvation is a problem, due to commercial farming and miuse of arable lands. You honestly think there the reason there is famines is due to lack of food. Come on use your common sense here.

Well, considering "famine" actually means "lack of food" I suppose so.

shamone wrote:3. a necessary evil which we refuse to use. Sure when the world is destroyed then hey we had no choice right !

Yes...we refuse to use fuel, the necessary evil I mentioned.

shamone wrote:4. We have studied other planets for colonization. If the time came where it was a critical decision and a lesser species populated the planet and their destruction was necessary for ours would we decide to expire. Evolution says otherwise

Evolution says we turn into a space-faring planet-conquering species? I don't know which evolutionary step that was. When, exactly, did we wipe out an entire species for our convenience?

shamone wrote:5. you mistake the logic. The first thing we did when faced with ele event was find another planet, not change our behavior. thats my point

And whoever made that decision was an idiot, and no one listened to him. There aren't any other habitable planets in this system. The next star out? Consider this, Mars is about .5 AU away from Earth, and the trip is estimated to take several months. Proxima Centauri, the star next door, is about 268,000 AU out.

1. society isnt the world. its the construct we have for the condition we live in. yeh we are the dominant species, and with that comes a matter of respect and responsibility

2. I dont know if you are being deliberately obtuse here, but do you believe that there isnt enough food in the world. Famine is caused by any number of things, usually economics. The irish famine was not due to lack of food. The lack of food in the world is not ause for starvation, because there isnt a lack of food

3. We continue to use fuel, because its a necessary evil. Will that be a sufficent excuse when we destroy the world, we had no choice !

4. I didnt actually say that. What i said was that evolution is about the survival of the species. Evolution dictates that we do what we can to preserve our existence. so domination of a world if needed, evolution says we would.

And in answer to your question, wipe out an entire species - buffalos http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/buffalo.htm

we have dont it once when unncessary, would we not do it when it was needed

5. lets see, Senior NASA official or internet poster. I know which one most would think is the idiot, unless you are a NASA official. Im not calling you an idiot just we are all probably idiots compared to NASA officials