The Energon Pub

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:You're missing the point. The concept of them not careing about the defects after the robots are sold would only make sence if they weren't useing the robots themselfs. How hard is that to understand. I agree that they wouldn't care about another race but the simple fact that they used them as well would make it seem like they didn't care about themselfs either.

No your missing the point, and it because you cant get around your own "baseless assumptions".

There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Quints would have recognized the issue at hand until it was far to late.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Quints would have seen the issue as a defect.

Remove those 2 assumptions from your thinking and your questions answer themselfs.

The issue would be noticed within a matter of months. The Quintessons had controll of them for years. There is no possible way the issue could go unnoticed for that long.

Anything that goes goes agenst what a product was created for is a defeact.

Again you're missing verry simple facts.

You say there's no reason to assume that the Quints would have recognized that there was an issue untill the rebellion. But there is a reason, TIME. The amount of TIME the Quints had control of them would make it IMPOSSIBLE not to notice. If the rebellion took place only a few weeks maybe even months after the Transformers were created I'd agree with you but the Quints had control of them for YEARS.

You say there's no reason the Quints would have seen the issue as a defeact. Again, there is a reason. Even in real life anything that allows a product to opperate in any way other than what it was intended for is a defect. Now I can allready see how that could be missread so I'm going to exsplain it more detail. That's not to say that if you make something to do one thing and it does that AND something else that wasn't intended but rather when it does something else and NOT what it was intended for. Transformers were intended to follow orders without question. The simple fact that they had free will allows them to dissobey orders which would be a defect. If it does what it's supose to AND something else that wasn't intended then and only then would it be seen as a bonus.

Rial Vestro wrote:That would be like knowing a product you made could be potentially harmfull but you're going to use it anyway.

Not just sell it, but USE IT..

Just like people do every day.

People still smoke,drink, use guns, cars ,motorcycles........

We use fossil fuels to power our lives while killing the planet, poisons as beauty treatment, little blue bills that increes our heart rates and blood pressures to "enhance" our sex.

The list go's on and on.

That's a rather poor compairison. Everything you listed actully does what it's intended to do sadly enough. All of thoughs things have an up side and a down side to them, and people use them because they're more interested in the positive effects of the product then the crappy after effects.

The crappy after effects of haveing the Transformers as slaves comes from the product not working as intended.

Basically if botox was something that made you look older insted of younger people wouldn't use it. It's only worth useing because they care more about their appearance than they're health.

A dissobediant robot offers only negitive and nothing positive.

Rial Vestro wrote: DO YOU GET IT YET! It would be freaking stupid to use a product you knew had defects and because of that the consept of "we don't care about the consumers" doesn't make any sence. It would make perfect sence if the robots weren't in use till after they were sold but not when the Quintessons are useing them before selling them. THAT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE!

DON'T YOU GET IT?!?!?!

Its nothing new.People have been useing and selling potentially harmfull products since FOREVER.

Defects or not people will use anything that gives the appearance of a convenience or an improvement to life.

Which has nothing to with dissobediant robots because all the "potentially harmfull" products we have in the real world actully work as they're intended to.

Rial Vestro wrote:A. Anything that allows a product not to function as programed is a defect. Free Will falls into that catigory.

Nonsenses.

Viagra was designed [programed] as a drug to help with high blood pressure.

It was considered a bonus when they learned it helped with erectile dysfunction.

Sometimes an added feature thats not designed [programed] is seen as a plus and not a defect.

See first responce.

BTW "free will" hardly fits the category you spoke of.

Simple fact is anything that goes against its designs would not automatically be seen as a defect.

The issue would be evaluated for its positives and negatives before it was determined if it was a defect or a lucky break.

Durring that time production and use of the product would continue.

Yes but free will would be seen as a defect because it does not allow for the Transformers to opperate as functioned.

I'll break this down yet again.

Why do you want to build a robot in the first place? To be a slave.

If all you need is a slave then why not just inslave some "inferrior" organic race? Because they can be dissobediant and potentially deadly in large numbers.

Because of these two things free will in robots could not be seen as a bonus and would automatically be a defect because it goes agenst the whole reasoning for building them in the first place and has just as much use as something that allready exsists for much cheaper.

Rial Vestro wrote:
C. I never assumed they didn't.

Your arguments indicate otherwise.

No it doesn't. That's just you putting words in my mouth again.

Rial Vestro wrote: How you're supose to respond to a question is to ANSWER IT which you have not done because you know I'm right.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

I have answered it.

Your just ignoring the answer because you realise how baseless the question was.

And thanks for making me laugh....its been a while.

Oh really? You've answered it. It's a yes or no question and every reply you've given has been neither of thoughs hence no you have never answered it.

Rial Vestro wrote:A. How can you not notice? The robots were under Quintesson controll for years before the rebellion. There's no way the defects could go unnoticed for that long. It would only talk a few months to notice with the least definitive personalitys.

Assuming again.

Your assuming that the robots wouldnt have been trying to hide the issue.

Again, there's verry little reason the robots would want to hide the issue. They would have to learn what fear is first before they could be afraid.

Rial Vestro wrote:B. Anything other than what it's programed for IS a defect.

False....as explained above.

True....as explained above.

Rial Vestro wrote:C. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT!

You did.

Prove it.

Rial Vestro wrote: It does not matter if they could do anything to fix it or not.

Then what would you have them do???

Can you rephraise the question, I don't know what you're asking.

Rial Vestro wrote: What matters is that they USED defective products.

Assuming it was viewed as a defect.

And we use harmful products every day.....why expect any less from the Quints???

Because our products actully work as intended.

Rial Vestro wrote:The simple fact is that if the Quints couldn't do anything to fix the issue they would have continued building and selling but they WOULD NOT use their own products.

Nonsense.

As I keep pointing out we use products that can be harmful every day.

Again, OUR PRODUCTS WORK AS INTENDED.

Guns are dangerous right, and people use them, right. Of course they do but they're designed to kill anything they're pointed out. HOWEVER if the gun is going to backfire on the USER and said user knows this they wouldn't use it.

I'll phaise it another way. A hunter will use a gun he knows will kill a deer. It's designed to kill the deer, he wants to kill the deer. The product is working perfectly. A hunter will NOT use a gun he knows will kill him. It's not designed to kill him, he doesn't want to die. The product is defective.

Rial Vestro wrote:How is compairing one sentiant robot to another a piss poor comparison?

Because that was a family friendly story told to show the best in humanity.

Which is a very unrealistic way to view the issue at hand.

Right, and a kids show is a much more realistic way to view the issue.

Rial Vestro wrote:Now you're assumening that the robots would be afraid of the quints which unless they allready have knowlage that the Quints are capable of dissmantleing them or whatever else a robot would be afraid of there's not reason to belive the Transformers would have any fear of their masters, at least not at first.

Its not an assumption, its story fact.

We've seen a few indications that the early robots were very afraid of their Quint masters.

We were even shown an example of one robot that rebeled and was recycled on the spot for doing so.

The fear on the other robots was apparent.

Ahem, the fear was PUT in them. What you implyed before was that they were just "born" that way. My argument even said "at least not at first."

Rial Vestro wrote:No YOU are the one who said they may not of noticed not me. That was a reply to something YOU have said multiple times even in this post you have said it. I never have. That's YOUR assumption.

No I'm assuming neither case.

I let the facts speak for them selfs.

Funny, that's what I'm doing. Your the one who seems to just be makeing this up as you go along. Erlier you even argued that there was no proof Quints kept Transformers as slave right after saying that they did and then went back and forth like that for a few posts. Seem to argueing just for the sake of argueing and I'm getting rather tiard.

Rial Vestro wrote:First of all, WTF Planet of the Apes? How does a movie that has absolutly NOTHING to do with robots have any comparison to what we're talking about? Johnny 5 is the closest other fiction to Transformers.

This is my point about you not having a good imagination and not seeing the big picture.

We're not talking about creations and robots, were talking about creating a "slave race" that learned the value of freedom and learned to rebel and how those in charge of the slaves didnt notice the problemt till it was too late.

And in that "Planet of the Apes" is a far closer comparison that Jonny five or Terminator.

Wow you're way off track. It's not about creating a slave race. It's about creating something that would be BETTER than a slave. Something that isn't capable of becomming dissobediant which is the only reason you would even want a robot a slave. If a robot is just as reliable as a human than what the hell is the point? There is no point, the product becomes completly useless and dangerous. Again, a simple fact which you seem unable to grasps.

Rial Vestro wrote:1. The first statement is a refrence to things I have said that would fall into the catigory of the second statement.

2. First statment "Because none of them are on point." "them" in this statement refers to examples of situations which...

Second Statement "people have a tendicy to ignore problems till they can no longer be ignored."

3. The examples I gave in earlier posts can no longer be ignored.

There I've stated the same thing 3 different ways, hope one of them reads clearly enough for you. (I'm preddy sure the first one is going to be missinterpreted.)

Sorry but I dont understand what your asking of me here.

I wasn't asking anything, I was exsplaining. What you said contridiced itself.

Basically you made it sound like the problem could still be ignored all thoughout the rebellion because you said they wouldn't of noticed examples I gave which allready could not be ignored and followed that with till they can not be ignored.

This probly still isn't going to make sence but you're the one that said it so that's your fault.

It's basically like telling someone their shirt can not be blue because it's blue.

Rial Vestro wrote:WTF? 2 posts ago you agreed with that statement now all the sudden you're saying something completly different. WTF? I just got whiplash from reading that.

Not one shred of evidence my ass, you know damn well there is PLENTY of evidence. I've said it in earlier posts and you agreed to it before now so don't go pulling that ****.

Not at all.

There is evidence the Quints "used" robots.

There is no evidence theu used the robots "before" they started selling.

*bashing head on key board.*

Oh my freaking gawd. How much more contridicting can you get. You posted 2 sentences one right after another both about the same subject but the first one says there's no evidence and the second says there is. Make up your mind.

BTW adding "before they stated selling" to the end of one sentence doesn't change the subject whitch is weather or not they used the robots. Wheather or not they used the robots before selling isn't even an issue and has verry little to do with this conversation.

Rial Vestro wrote:No, you're not getting it. What you're saying has no logic to it. You've said before that the quints weren't even strong enough to keep organic slaves which I agree with. But the logic fails when you think they can keep free willed robotic slaves. Now we're back into the basics of this argument which is that robots are stronger than organics so if you really belive that the Quints aren't strong enough to keep an organic slave it doesn't make any sence that you would think they could keep a slave that is larger and stronger than any organic.

No your not getting it.

Its not an issue of strength or lack of it.

If it's not an issue then why did you bring it up?

Rial Vestro wrote:That's a matter of opinion. The Transformers rebellion is easily comparible to American war with Britton for our "freedom". The Transformers and Cybertron would be America and the Quints would be the red coats the only difference being that the Transformers didn't come to Cybertron from Quintessa. But it was a war no less where one side was fighting for their freedom from the other.

Its not that much of an opinion and compareing the rebellion to the civil war is in poor taste.

You're mixing wars now. The Civil War was years after the war I mentioned and was the Northern states of America vs. the Southern states of america.

I was talking about WAY BACK when America was still a bunch of Brittish coloines trying to get indipendance from Britton.

And heres why.

We dont know if the Quints fought back.

Yes we do. Time travel episode with A-3. That was set when the rebellion first started and we saw someone fireing weapons at the troops being lead by A-3 which would mean the Quints were fighting back or some how got someone else to fight back for them but either way, they were in a war.

Granted it seems logical that they did but we dont know if they realy fought back.

For all we know the TF's ran them off pretty quickly with a series of well planned attacks.

I don't think they put up much of a fight or that they were even capable of putting up much of a fight but they did fight however short it lasted.

Hell we're still technically at war with terrorists but have they even done anything sence 9-11. It was this big scare at the time and now I rarely ever hear anything about it.

Rial Vestro wrote:To be perfactly honest. I don't even remember ever bringing it up in the first place and even if I did I dropped the subject long ago, you're the one who's fixated on it.

I'm not fixated on it at all.

You just keep bringing it back up to try to save face.

I'm not bringing anything up. You're the one doing that. I mentioned it ONCE if at all.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's not what I asked. What I asked was why do you fixate on something I've said ONCE and never brought up again insted of on current issues that I end out haveing repeat multiple times before you ever reply to them.

I answered the issue once.

Your stuck on it because you realise how stupid of you it was to bring it up in the first place.

If you want to drop it then do so already.

No, I brought up the issue once if even that I still don't even remember saying it. You've replyed to it multiple times.

I'm not stuck on it, I haven't even talked about it in so long I don't remember bringing it up in the first place. You're the one that's stuck it sence you seem to be the only one who even remembers what the hell it was. Even while I'm reply to this I don't remember what the hell I'm talking about.

I only brought up your fixation on the subject so we could drop it so please do so.

And sence alot of the post is just more of the same crap over and over again. Rather than repeating the same replys over and over again. I'm going to end this. I'm tiard of trying to exsplain basic addition to you while you're doing long division.

Simple fact is you're going WAY over the subject and completly ignoreing the basics so you're argument is flawed. You need to learn basic adding and subtracting before you can do long division but you want to skip the easy still and go straight to the hard stuff.

I'm going to try to make this short and sweet.........

Rial Vestro wrote:The issue would be noticed within a matter of months.

Assumptions.

A] that it would be noticed at all

B] that it would only take months

C] that it would be considered an issue

Rial Vestro wrote:Anything that goes goes agenst what a product was created for is a defeact.

Already proven to be untrue.

Rial Vestro wrote:Again you're missing verry simple facts.

Again your assuming facts not in evidence.

Rial Vestro wrote:You say there's no reason to assume that the Quints would have recognized that there was an issue untill the rebellion.

Thats not what I said.

I said theres no reason to assume the Quints would have seen the issue till it was too late.

And "too late" does not meen the rebelion.

Rial Vestro wrote:You say there's no reason the Quints would have seen the issue as a defeact.

Correct.

Rial Vestro wrote: Again, there is a reason. Even in real life anything that allows a product to opperate in any way other than what it was intended for is a defect.

Thats not true.....particularly in real life.

The issue would be evaluated first for its positives and negitives .

Rial Vestro wrote: Now I can allready see how that could be missread so I'm going to exsplain it more detail. That's not to say that if you make something to do one thing and it does that AND something else that wasn't intended but rather when it does something else and NOT what it was intended for.

Still not true.

As I pointed out with Viagra in my last post.

That med failed at what it was intended to do.

Rial Vestro wrote: Transformers were intended to follow orders without question. The simple fact that they had free will allows them to dissobey orders which would be a defect.

And there you are again assuming facts not in evidence.

Yes free will "allows" them to disobey.

BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY DISOBEYED ON A REGULAR BASES.

Thats why theres no reason to assume the Quints would have realised the issue at hand.

Theres no evidence that the robots had a habit of disobeying on a regular bases.And with out and disobedience recognizing free will would have been near impossible.

Rial Vestro wrote: If it does what it's supose to AND something else that wasn't intended then and only then would it be seen as a bonus.

There are times that a product fails at what it was intended to do but succeeds at something unexpected and its considered a mirical.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's a rather poor compairison.

No its the perfect comparison.

Each one of those products are possible harmful and we use it every day.

And it would be the same with free willed robots.

It would be seen as a "possible danger", on that programing should fix.

People would continue useing them till something major went wrong.

Rial Vestro wrote:and people use them because they're more interested in the positive effects of the product then the crappy after effects.

Smoking has no real positive effects on the body.

Rial Vestro wrote:The crappy after effects of haveing the Transformers as slaves comes from the product not working as intended.

Again your assuming facts not in evidence.

A] your assuming the robots didnt continue to preform as programed.

B] your assuming that "life like" wasnt intended by the Quints.

And before you say I'm contradicting myself....I'm not.

I made no assumtions as to what they intended because that was never revealed.

I allow for the possibility that the Quints may or may noit have intended for life like robots.

Rial Vestro wrote:A dissobediant robot offers only negitive and nothing positive.

Your assuming they were disobedient from early on.

Your also assume that if any were disobedient that it was in large numbers.

There is no evidence to support either assumption.

At best there were a few that disobeyed, that were promptly delt with.

Rial Vestro wrote:See first responce.

Why??? It failed the first time.

Viagra failed at what it was intended to do.

It was designed to lower blood pressure.

And it doesnt.It redirects blood flow to the penis.And in doing so it raises blood pressure.

Rial Vestro wrote:Yes but free will would be seen as a defect because it does not allow for the Transformers to opperate as functioned.

Assumptions.

Facts not in evidence.

Rial Vestro wrote:I'll break this down yet again.

Why do you want to build a robot in the first place?

There can be any number of reasons.

Rial Vestro wrote:To be a slave.

Thats an assumption.

Yes thats what they used them as but we have no reason to assume that was the motivating goal when they were first created.

Rial Vestro wrote:If all you need is a slave then why not just inslave some "inferrior" organic race?

Could be because they couldnt.

And we dont know that "slaves" are what they wanted when they first created the robots.

Rial Vestro wrote:Because of these two things free will in robots could not be seen as a bonus and would automatically be a defect because it goes agenst the whole reasoning for building them in the first place and has just as much use as something that allready exsists for much cheaper.

A] your assuming that "life like robots" wasnt the intent.

B] your assuming free will would have been reconized\detected

c] your assuming it would have been viewed as a defect

C] live slaves are not "cheeper" to keep.

Rial Vestro wrote:
No it doesn't

Yes it does

Rial Vestro wrote:Oh really?

Yep

Rial Vestro wrote:You've answered it.

Thats right

Rial Vestro wrote: It's a yes or no question

No its not because the question itself is not logical.

The question relys on "facts" not in evidence, so a yes or a no do not properly answer the question.

Rial Vestro wrote: hence no you have never answered it.

Yes I have.

Rial Vestro wrote:Again, there's verry little reason the robots would want to hide the issue. They would have to learn what fear is first before they could be afraid.

And there you are ignoring the facts again.We were shown a scene in which 1 robot disobeyed and he was recycled on the spot.

The robots that witnessed that would have understood fear.

Fear is a primal emotion.

Fear is not taught, its one of the first emotions every one experiences.

The robots would have feared their creators by nature.

Rial Vestro wrote:
True....as explained above.

False as explained above more times then once.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Prove it.

Heres just one of the times you said something that indicated that the Quints could have done something to fix the issue.

Rial Vestro wrote:they're smart enough to hold off production till the "bugs" can be worked out

There are a few other statements as well but I made my point.

Rial Vestro wrote: Can you rephraise the question, I don't know what you're asking.

If they realized the problem what would you expect them to do about it considering how depentend they had become on the robots.

Give me what you think the logical course of action and what do you hink would be the most likely course of action they would take.

Rial Vestro wrote:Because our products actully work as intended.

Not all of them.

Rial Vestro wrote:Right, and a kids show is a much more realistic way to view the issue.

Thats no where near what I'm talking about.

Its the subject matter ,that whats this debate is about.

Creating a slave race is the subject, and Johnny 5 just isint on point.

Rial Vestro wrote: that way. My argument even said "at least not at first."

Your argument failed because as always you dont do any research, because you lack insight, because you lack imagination.

Rial Vestro wrote:Funny, that's what I'm doing.

Nonsense.

Your entire argument is a series of assumptions.

Rial Vestro wrote: Erlier you even argued that there was no proof Quints kept Transformers as slave right after saying that they did and then went back and forth like that for a few posts.

Nope I never did that.

More to follow later.

Rial Vestro wrote:Wow you're way off track.

I'm right on track.

Rial Vestro wrote: It's not about creating a slave race.

The hell it aint.

The TF's were created and programed to be sold to others and to be used to preform the work that the buyers did not want to do.

The "APES" were gathered and programed to be sold to others to be used to preform the work that tne buyers did not want to do.

Rial Vestro wrote: It's about creating something that would be BETTER than a slave. Something that isn't capable of becomming dissobediant which is the only reason you would even want a robot a slave. If a robot is just as reliable as a human than what the hell is the point? There is no point, the product becomes completly useless and dangerous. Again, a simple fact which you seem unable to grasps.

Now your assuming the underling motivations of the quints.

Will your baseless assumptions ever end.

We dont know what the Quints intended for.

Rial Vestro wrote:It's basically like telling someone their shirt can not be blue because it's blue.

Your still not making any sence.

I ,in no way, contradicted myself.

Rial Vestro wrote:
*bashing head on key board.*

Thats probly how your problems started.

Rial Vestro wrote:Oh my freaking gawd. How much more contridicting can you get. You posted 2 sentences one right after another both about the same subject but the first one says there's no evidence and the second says there is. Make up your mind.

Try to Follow....I know thats difficult for you.

You said [not exact quote] "the Quints used them as slaves "LONG BEFORE" they ever sold the".

There is no evidence of that.

We dont know what the Quints did first, slave them or sell them.

Rial Vestro wrote: Wheather or not they used the robots before selling isn't even an issue

You made it an issue with your statement.

Rial Vestro wrote:

If it's not an issue then why did you bring it up?

I didnt.

You did everytime you try to say it was because bof that they they attempted to created the TF's as slaves.

Rial Vestro wrote:You're mixing wars now. The Civil War was years after the war I mentioned and was the Northern states of America vs. the Southern states of america.

I was talking about WAY BACK when America was still a bunch of Brittish coloines trying to get indipendance from Britton.

My mistake.

But my point is equating the TF revolt with any war is in poor taste because we dont know if the Quints fought back.

Rial Vestro wrote:Yes we do.

No we dont.

Rial Vestro wrote: Time travel episode with A-3. That was set when the rebellion first started and we saw someone fireing weapons at the troops being lead by A-3 which would mean the Quints were fighting back or some how got someone else to fight back for them but either way, they were in a war.

First..... firing at advancing troops to cover your retreat is not the same thing as fighting in a war.

Second.....that never happened.I dont know how many times I have to tell you to do your research.

The Quints sent in the Dark Guradians,there was some fighting, A-3 used his slave symbol on them and they shut downed.

Thats was the extent of Quint fighting that we saw.

There may have been a war but we never saw any evidence of it.

And just to be clear....one incedent of fighting is not the same as a war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJXNuHcBAS8

Rial Vestro wrote:Hell we're still technically at war with terrorists but have they even done anything sence 9-11.

Yes they have.

Rial Vestro wrote:
I'm not bringing anything up.

Yes you did as you continue too.

Rial Vestro wrote:No, I brought up the issue once if even that I still don't even remember saying it. You've replyed to it multiple times.

Get over it buddy.

Well for the 13, the Fallen would be called by his orininal name and the other 12 will be The Fallen 1, the Fallen 2, ect.

Note to self. Find way to fix mouse so if I accidently press the mouse button 4 it won't hit back on the web page.

I just lost my post again.

Anyway... I don't really want to go back a rewright everything but I will point out the last thing I was starting the type.

You had another contridiction where in the same line of text you showed an example of learning fear and followed it by implying that you're born allready afraid.

Hell in the same sentence you said "fear is not learned, it's exsperienced." I'm pairaphraiseing but how do you think learning is possible? You have to exsperience before you can learn what fear is.

I can use an example from my own life. I have worked with some rather large sets in my theater exsperience. Sets which have trapped me in my corner by the patch pannel which is where I do most of my work at the Fallon House. Up till St. Patric's Day last year I've never had a problem with this other than being slightly irritated. Durring South Pacific last year which took place AFTER my St. Patric's Day insident I had a set where I was stuck in my corner for 3/4 of the show. This was the first time after the insident I've had to deal with a set like that where I was traped in a space I couldn't get out of, and I was scared shitless the entire time I was there. The happiest moments of that show where when the sliders (moving walls) trapping me in the corner needed to go out on stage allowing me to get out of my corner.

Technically I could of gone in and out at any time but then I would have to go out on stage or the sliders would have to go out on stage. Thoughs were the only ways to get out of there. I just barely managed to deal with it but now that I'm aware of how I'm going to feel in situations like that I'm going to make sure I never have to deal with it again.

Even at opening night partys which are useually crowded. I normally feel fine except for a mild case of parinoia which doesn't normally occure when I know everyone around me only in large crowds of straingers. But again ever sence St. Patric's Day last year if I'm surrounded on all sides by people I go into freak out mode and just start looking for the first exit I can get to.

If I go out to eat I make sure I allways sit on the end so I don't have to rely on someone else to get up before I can. Again something I never had to do before St. Patric's Day last year.

I'm afraid to be in closed spaces that I can't get out of and I never use to be before that insident last year. It's a fear that I've had to learn not something that I've allways delt with.

Every fear is the same way. Everyone is born fearless and fear is learned through exsperience. Alot of exsperiences that cause fear are repressed into the subcontious but they still had to be learned and you would not be afraid of whatever it was you're afraid of if you never had the exsperience where you learned to be afraid of it.

You know Sabe.....when I entered this debate with you it was with the greatest hope that you would drop your misconception,stop assuming things, open your mind a bit and ask some real questions.

My hope was that you would finally learn something instead of trying to boast about all you know.....but I can now see that your hopeless.

Your questions and statements all rely on cretin events or motivations that you "BELIEVE" to be facts.......but they are not facts.

Let me try to give you the "REAL" facts of the issue.


WHAT WE KNOW

The Quints created the TF's
TF's had free will
The Quints sold and used them as slaves



WHAT WE DON'T KNOW

Why
Why
Why


Do you now see why all your statements are illogical and baseless????

Because you have come up with answers to these questions , and none of your answers are based on evidence.

You assumed that the Quints created the TF's to be slaves.

We dont know if that was the "REASON" the TF's were created.Yes we know thats what ended up happening but we dont know what the original reason for their Creation was.

You assumed that "Free Will" was an unintended defect.

We dont know if thats true.Fact is with out knowing the real reason they were created in the first place we cant even begin to assume wether "free will" was intentional or unintentional.

We just dont know why they were originally created.Was it an experiment into AI research, was it one Quint scientist dream, was it part of a way to make totally robotic bodies for themselfs.....the what if's are endless.

You assume that the Quints intended to sell/use their creations.

And while that proved to be true at some point, what was the Quints original intentions for the Robots???

Where they ment to help rebuilt Quint society after some disaster, where they ment to rebuilt Quint economy, did the Quints just have a desire to create.

We just dont know any of the reasons for why the TF's were originally created.

Yes we know what the Quints ended up doing to their creations, but we dont know any of the real reasons they were created.

So your questions and assumptions are baseless because they all assume the fact that the TF's were created to be slaves from the start.And there is no evidence to back that up as the "REASON" they were created.

Its just as likely that one Quint scientist, who was working on AI research, created the first TF's for some other purpose.Maybe something positive.He may have intended to give them free will as part of his work.

Then "Big Buisness" type Quints hear of his work and corrupt it by some means.Just like it tends to happen in the real world.

And if thats the case, "Free Will" would not have been considered a defect, because it was part of the original design.Yes it would have been seen as a negative, one they needed to try to plan for, but thats it.

Granted its speculation, but it's logical.

And the difference is I'm not trying to argue my speculation as fact, like your doing.

Your speculating that the reason the Quints created the robots was to be slaves, and your arguing that "reason" of yours as if it was a known fact.

And your wrong for doing so.....because they have never told us the "reasons" why the first were ever created.

Rial Vestro wrote:You had another contridiction where in the same line of text you showed an example of learning fear and followed it by implying that you're born allready afraid.

Theres no contradiction in that statement what so ever.I never said that the robots that witnessed the indecent "learned" fear on that they.

I said they would have "understood" it.

here read the section again.....

We were shown a scene in which 1 robot disobeyed and he was recycled on the spot.

The robots that witnessed that would have understood fear.

Fear is a primal emotion.

Fear is not taught, its one of the first emotions every one experiences.

The robots would have feared their creators by nature.

You really need to improve on your reading and comprehension skills.

Rial Vestro wrote:Every fear is the same way. Everyone is born fearless and fear is learned through exsperience. Alot of exsperiences that cause fear are repressed into the subcontious but they still had to be learned and you would not be afraid of whatever it was you're afraid of if you never had the exsperience where you learned to be afraid of it.

Nice story but ....NO.

Fear itself is primal, everyone is born with fear.As a matter of fact brain scans of new born children indicate is the "fear section" of the brain that is most active just after birth and may be the primary reason children cry when they emerge.

Whats learned is "what" to be afraid of.

And that comes about by experance.And I'm sure the first time a robot saw a Quint working on an other robot they would have learned to fear their creators.

Its natural to fear those that have dominion over you.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
WHAT WE KNOW

The Quints created the TF's
TF's had free will
The Quints sold and used them as slaves



WHAT WE DON'T KNOW

Why
Why
Why

To be slaves.
not relivent to the issue why.
To make money and that's what they were built for.

If they were ment to be something other than slaves they wouldn't of been used as slaves sence they're not all that usefull as slaves to begin with.

Do you now see why all your statements are illogical and baseless????

Most logical and has base. You're illogical and baseless. You're a freaking Klingon for fricks sake, not a drop of logic in you.

Because you have come up with answers to these questions , and none of your answers are based on evidence.

You assumed that the Quints created the TF's to be slaves.

There is plenty of evidence. They were used as slaves so they were built to be slaves. If they had a different intended use they wouldn't be slaves.

Why would you build something for one purpose that it's good for then use it for something else that it isn't any good for?

Simple fact, there are uses and reasons for wanting free willed robots but slavery is not one of them so why were they being used as slaves? Simple answer that's what they were built for. There is no other logical exsplination. They're slaves. There's no more too it than what we saw.

We dont know if that was the "REASON" the TF's were created.Yes we know thats what ended up happening but we dont know what the original reason for their Creation was.

You assumed that "Free Will" was an unintended defect.

We dont know if thats true.Fact is with out knowing the real reason they were created in the first place we cant even begin to assume wether "free will" was intentional or unintentional.

We just dont know why they were originally created.Was it an experiment into AI research, was it one Quint scientist dream, was it part of a way to make totally robotic bodies for themselfs.....the what if's are endless.

No they're really not. If you look at what we know you can easily eliminate every other possibility and there simple is no other logical reason for free willed robots to used as slave unless the free will was not intentional and they were designed as slaves. Any use for intentionally creating free will in machines would not lead to slavery because there is no use for a slave with free will. The simple fact that they were used as slaves means the only possible reason they could of been built is to be slaves and the free will would be a defeat that allows them to go agenst their programming and dissobey their masters.

There simply is no other logical exsplination. It's not an assumetion, it's the most logical possibility after illiminateing every other possibility.

Proccess of elimination. When nothing else makes any sence the one thing that's left must be the answer.

You assume that the Quints intended to sell/use their creations.

And while that proved to be true at some point, what was the Quints original intentions for the Robots???

I assumed no such thing and it's not even relivant to the conversation if they intended to buy or use their creations. If you're going to make a product there's only 2 things you can do with it. Use it or sell it so there really isn't much else they could have intended to do here. Let it sit and collect dust.

Where they ment to help rebuilt Quint society after some disaster, where they ment to rebuilt Quint economy, did the Quints just have a desire to create.

Irrelivant.

So your questions and assumptions are baseless because they all assume the fact that the TF's were created to be slaves from the start.And there is no evidence to back that up as the "REASON" they were created.

The simple fact that they were used as slaves is evidence that was why they were created. Never thought I'd have to point out the obvious but damn, you're overlooking everything lately.

Its just as likely that one Quint scientist, who was working on AI research, created the first TF's for some other purpose.Maybe something positive.He may have intended to give them free will as part of his work.

Then "Big Buisness" type Quints hear of his work and corrupt it by some means.Just like it tends to happen in the real world.

Even given that scinario the "big buisness" type Quint would have to remove the free will from the robots programming before they could sell it as a slave.

Just fact it, every other possibility is illogical given the facts that we know.

You talk like there isn't enough evidence to suport anything but there is. There's enough evidence in what was shown to suport that...

A. Free Will was in fact a defect. Robots who the quints knew were effected because they became dissobediant were destroyed and/or recycled.

B. Transformers were slaves and were allways ment to be slaves or A would not apply.

There is no evidence to suport any other possibility.

Rial Vestro wrote:You had another contridiction where in the same line of text you showed an example of learning fear and followed it by implying that you're born allready afraid.

Theres no contradiction in that statement what so ever.I never said that the robots that witnessed the indecent "learned" fear on that they.

I said they would have "understood" it.

That's learning. They would not of known the fear before that event.

You're implying that they would allready have been afraid before haveing ever witnessed the event while at the same time saying they learned it after witnessing the event.

here read the section again.....

We were shown a scene in which 1 robot disobeyed and he was recycled on the spot.

The robots that witnessed that would have understood fear.

Fear is a primal emotion.

Fear is not taught, its one of the first emotions every one experiences.

The robots would have feared their creators by nature.

You really need to improve on your reading and comprehension skills.

The scene you speak of would teach any witness what fear is. No one would have any reason to fear before witnessing such an event.

The robots witnessing have LEARNED fear. Something they would not of know about before the event.

Fear is an emotion, yes, that's really the only thing you said that wasn't a contridiction.

Fear IS taught. Fear can not be known untill AFTER it has been exsperienced. Within this same line you have implyed that fear has to be exspericed first which is correct but you started it by saying it's allready known.

Robots would NOT have feared their creators by nature. There's no reason for them to be afraid if they haven't had the exsperice yet.

You need to stop speaking in Oxi-morons. You can't learn something you were allready born knowing about and fear is not something anyone is born with. It's something that's taught through life exsperience.

Rial Vestro wrote:Every fear is the same way. Everyone is born fearless and fear is learned through exsperience. Alot of exsperiences that cause fear are repressed into the subcontious but they still had to be learned and you would not be afraid of whatever it was you're afraid of if you never had the exsperience where you learned to be afraid of it.

Nice story but ....NO.

Fear itself is primal, everyone is born with fear.As a matter of fact brain scans of new born children indicate is the "fear section" of the brain that is most active just after birth and may be the primary reason children cry when they emerge.

Whats learned is "what" to be afraid of.

And that comes about by experance.And I'm sure the first time a robot saw a Quint working on an other robot they would have learned to fear their creators.

Its natural to fear those that have dominion over you.

You have it a little backwards there.

Without anything to be afraid of there can't be fear. It's cause and effect not effect and cause. Exserience first, then fear not fear then exsperience.

As for the just after birth thing, I once heard a comedian who used the process of birth as part of his act. Allthough I don't remember all of it nor do I want to the basic jist of it was that the first few moments of life are the most tramitizing events of anyone's life. It's no wonder no one remembers their own birth, right from the moment you're born you allready have your first repressed memory.

It's not just the actual birth but everything the baby has to deal with afterwards. One of the first things that happens is getting the umbilicle cord cut which probly hurts. Then they get bathed and I doubt any hospital is verry gentle about bathing the babies which might exsplain why so many children are prone to avoiding bath time.

I kinda think babies are treated like crying sacks of meat right after their born rather than tiny little people.

Rial Vestro wrote:To be slaves.

There is no evidence to support that.

Rial Vestro wrote:not relivent to the issue why.

Nonsenses

Rial Vestro wrote:To make money and that's what they were built for.

Again there is no evidence to support that.

Rial Vestro wrote:If they were ment to be something other than slaves they wouldn't of been used as slaves sence they're not all that usefull as slaves to begin with.

Thats complete false and evidence of your limited imagination and your closed mind.

Again I take you to "Planet of the Apes".

The Apes were originally gathered to replace house hold pets after some space virus killed every dog and cat in the world.People took in Apes to be their new pets, and after learning how smart and adaptable apes were they put them to work as slaves.

There is nothing to suggest that something similar was not the case with the TF's at the start.

There is no information for the reasons the TF's were first created.

Rial Vestro wrote:Most logical and has base. You're illogical and baseless. You're a freaking Klingon for fricks sake, not a drop of logic in you.

Funny but no.

Your senerio is devoid of logic because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Rial Vestro wrote:There is plenty of evidence.

Really????Lets see if you can provide some.......

Rial Vestro wrote: They were used as slaves so they were built to be slaves. If they had a different intended use they wouldn't be slaves.

Thats completely illogical.

Plenty of mans inventions are used for purposes not originally intended when created.

Rial Vestro wrote:Why would you build something for one purpose that it's good for then use it for something else that it isn't any good for?

Now your assuming they werent good as slaves at the start.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Simple fact, there are uses and reasons for wanting free willed robots but slavery is not one of them so why were they being used as slaves?

There could be any number of reasons....corruption from big business being the top among them.

Rial Vestro wrote: Simple answer that's what they were built for.

Nonsenses.

Rial Vestro wrote:There is no other logical exsplination. They're slaves. There's no more too it than what we saw.

In your opinion.

So far you havent provided a lic of evidence.

Rial Vestro wrote:No they're really not. If you look at what we know you can easily eliminate every other possibility and there simple is no other logical reason for free willed robots to used as slave unless the free will was not intentional and they were designed as slaves. Any use for intentionally creating free will in machines would not lead to slavery because there is no use for a slave with free will. The simple fact that they were used as slaves means the only possible reason they could of been built is to be slaves and the free will would be a defeat that allows them to go agenst their programming and dissobey their masters.

Not an ounce of that was logical.

The fact that they were "used" as slaves is not evidence of the "reason" they were created.

We were never given and reason as to why they were created.

Rial Vestro wrote:There simply is no other logical exsplination. It's not an assumetion, it's the most logical possibility after illiminateing every other possibility.

Not in any way logical.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Proccess of elimination. When nothing else makes any sence the one thing that's left must be the answer.

That would be funny if it wasnt so pittyful coming from you.

What have you eliminated????

What have you disproved as a possibility????

Heres one to try to eliminate.....prove to me how its not possible that the first TF wasnt created by a Quint scientist who had the same goals as Doctor Noonien Soong [from Star Trek TNG] the man who created Data.

Rial Vestro wrote:I assumed no such thing and it's not even relivant to the conversation

You did and it is.

Rial Vestro wrote: Irrelivant.

No your entire argument is.

Rial Vestro wrote:The simple fact that they were used as slaves is evidence that was why they were created.

What they were "used" for is not evidence for the "reason" they were created.

Rial Vestro wrote: Never thought I'd have to point out the obvious but damn, you're overlooking everything lately.

No the problem is you cant see whats 2 steps in front of you.

You just cant see past what you think you've been told....and for the rest you just make things up.

Simple fact is we were never told the reasons why they were created.

We know how they were used but we have no clue why the first one was ever built.

Rial Vestro wrote:Even given that scinario the "big buisness" type Quint would have to remove the free will from the robots programming before they could sell it as a slave.

Assuming that they "could".

Which is yet an other assumption on your part.

"Big buisness" may have found a way to mass produce the robot or even have forced the original creator to build a mass production factory but there is no reason to assume they would have been able to "redesign" the specs.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Just fact it, every other possibility is illogical given the facts that we know.

Just assumption after assumptions after assumptions.

You have provided nothing more.

Rial Vestro wrote:
You talk like there isn't enough evidence to suport anything but there is.

Really????Lets see if you can provide some this time.....

Rial Vestro wrote: There's enough evidence in what was shown to suport that...

A. Free Will was in fact a defect. Robots who the quints knew were effected because they became dissobediant were destroyed and/or recycled.

Thats not evidence that the issue was seen as a "defect".

Thats only evidence that the delt with disobedient robots.

So thats one fail for you.

Rial Vestro wrote:
B. Transformers were slaves and were allways ment to be slaves or A would not apply.

A doesnt apply.

The fact that they were slaves i not evidence that they were originally created to "BE" slaves.

So thats 2 fails for you.

Rial Vestro wrote:
There is no evidence to suport any other possibility.

There is no evidence period.

So again you failed to provide any evidence as to the reasons why they were originally created.

So again......

Rial Vestro wrote:That's learning. They would not of known the fear before that event.

Your assuming things again.

We have no reason to assume that was the first event of a disobedient robot.

And theres no way to know if that was there first experance with anything frighting.

Rial Vestro wrote:
You're implying that they would allready have been afraid before haveing ever witnessed the event while at the same time saying they learned it after witnessing the event.

No I did not.

I said their reactions to the event proves they understood fear.

I never eluded to when they first became afraid.

Again you need to improve on your reading and comprehension skills.

Rial Vestro wrote:The scene you speak of would teach any witness what fear is.

"COULD" not would.....and only if they didnt already know fear.

And I believe they would have known fear long before that event.

Rial Vestro wrote: No one would have any reason to fear before witnessing such an event.

Nonsense.

I doubt that was the first event of disobedience.And even before that event the Quints were cruel to their slaves.

They would have already known fear.

Rial Vestro wrote:
The robots witnessing have LEARNED fear. Something they would not of know about before the event.

Assumptions

Rial Vestro wrote:Fear IS taught. Fear can not be known untill AFTER it has been exsperienced. Within this same line you have implyed that fear has to be exspericed first which is correct but you started it by saying it's allready known.

Fear is primal.

It is not taught.

What to fear is learned but fear itself is primal.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Robots would NOT have feared their creators by nature. There's no reason for them to be afraid if they haven't had the exsperice yet.

Fear of those with dominion over you is natural.

And the actions of the Quints would have instilled fear.

Rial Vestro wrote:
You need to stop speaking in Oxi-morons.

No I need to stop speaking TO a Moron.

Rial Vestro wrote:
You have it a little backwards there.

No you do.

Rial Vestro wrote:Without anything to be afraid of there can't be fear.

Thats incorrect to.

Just like every other emotion,Fear does not require logic or actual cause and effect.

People fall in love with images, with pictures, with the idea of what and who the other person is.

People are afraid of the dark, of whats under the bed, of whats in the closet, of the next day, of commitment.

None of these are logical or have a real cause.

Rial Vestro wrote:I kinda think babies are treated like crying sacks of meat right after their born rather than tiny little people.

None of which changes the fact that its the "fear" center of the brain that is active.

The scans were taken just after the children emerged, before the umbilicle cord was cut and before the child was bathed.

Researchers believe the "fear" is the result of being in a new inviorment, open and not surrounded by fluid.They also believe the absenes of the mothers heart beat frightens the child.

Other recearchs believe the fear eminents from the child sudden realisation that he'she is now alone.

Remember, for the first 9 months the child is part of a symbiotic relationship with its mother.They feel each others presence.And oncce thr child emeges that symbiotic link is broken.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote:Why would you build something for one purpose that it's good for then use it for something else that it isn't any good for?

Now your assuming they werent good as slaves at the start.

There again you're continueing to overlook the same obvious fact yet again. How many times do I have to point this out. Free Will makes any slave hard to control. If it was intentinally given to them they would of known how to remove it and done so to provent the robots from ever becomming dissobediant. The only good slave is one without free will.

This is why you're planet of the apes compairison is a poor one. It has absolutly NOTHING to do with robots. In either case the humans or the apes had no choise, they couldn't remove free will from their slaves. They're not robots.

With Transformers free will was either intended in which case they would of known how to remove it from their programming or it wasn't intended which is the more logical reason.

Rial Vestro wrote:Simple fact, there are uses and reasons for wanting free willed robots but slavery is not one of them so why were they being used as slaves?

There could be any number of reasons....corruption from big business being the top among them.

Which would mean whatever was giveing them free will could be removed and wasn't makeing that reasoning highly illogical.

Rial Vestro wrote:There is no other logical exsplination. They're slaves. There's no more too it than what we saw.

In your opinion.

So far you havent provided a lic of evidence.

You're just blind to it. Even when I point out the obvious it's still over your head. I'm begineing to think it would take me years to exsplain to you every possible sinerio before you'd realize there's only one that makes any logical sence.

Rial Vestro wrote:No they're really not. If you look at what we know you can easily eliminate every other possibility and there simple is no other logical reason for free willed robots to used as slave unless the free will was not intentional and they were designed as slaves. Any use for intentionally creating free will in machines would not lead to slavery because there is no use for a slave with free will. The simple fact that they were used as slaves means the only possible reason they could of been built is to be slaves and the free will would be a defeat that allows them to go agenst their programming and dissobey their masters.

Not an ounce of that was logical.

The fact that they were "used" as slaves is not evidence of the "reason" they were created.

We were never given and reason as to why they were created.

But there is only one reason they could have been created. It's simple.

They have free will which we know they can not simply remove which means it wasn't intentionally given to them. If it was an intentinal part of their programming they would know how to remove it. If they knew how to remove it they would have before useing them as slaves. Slaves with free will are unpredicatble, dangerous, and therefore useless. All of which leads to the only possible conclusion that they were intended to be slaves from the start and that free will was never intended to be part of their programming.

It's process of elimination. Useing what we do know to figure out what we don't. A child can do it.

Rial Vestro wrote:Proccess of elimination. When nothing else makes any sence the one thing that's left must be the answer.

That would be funny if it wasnt so pittyful coming from you.

What have you eliminated????

What have you disproved as a possibility????

Heres one to try to eliminate.....prove to me how its not possible that the first TF wasnt created by a Quint scientist who had the same goals as Doctor Noonien Soong [from Star Trek TNG] the man who created Data.

I allready have.

Data was intentinally built to be more human than machine and to have free will. Transformers were not and there is evidence of this in the cartoon that you yourself have even pointed out.

A scene where a robot became dissobediant and was recycled on the spot for doing so. Now if they were intentinally programed that way like data was the Quints would have no need to do that. The programming would have simply been removed.

The simple fact that we know they disposed of robots who dissobeyed orders tells us alot about them that you seem incapable of comprehending. To disspose of the robot could only mean that they saw his dissobediance as a glitch in his programming, that they've delt with the same glitch before, tryed to fix it, failed, and determined it was just far easier to destroy all effected robots they could find.

I'm going to call you Watsen. I'm far from being Sherlock Holms but I'm sertainly closer to it than you are.

Let's see, you've accused me of being illogical and closed minded. Neither of which is true. You have provided some different sinerios to try and "open my mind" and failed misserably not because I'm too closed mined to see any other possibility but because every sinero you've provided could not lead to the results we know are true in the cartoon while the sinero I've provided can.

You ask how do you know yadda yadda yadda didn't happen, because I'm looking at the end result and yadda yadda yadda would lead to a different end result and not the one we know is fact.

It's rather simple prossess of elimination that any child is capable of doing.

One thing leads to another and another and another untill what we finally get is a rebellion on Cybertron. What could have possibly lead to all that? They were designed and built as slaves, they were unintentically given free will. The first one to become dissobediant was examinied and they tried to fix the problem as well as halting production to check any robots that came after him. After determining that the problem could not be fixed they simply destroy him and start again. Any future robots who become dissobediant get destroyed on the spot. Eventually their numbers grow to the point where they deside it's time we had our freedom.

The only thing that still doesn't make sence is why the would continue to use the robots after they found the defect. But everything else is easily exsplainable.

Any other sinerio would have alot more unexsplained plot holes hence this is the most logical answer.

Rial Vestro wrote: Never thought I'd have to point out the obvious but damn, you're overlooking everything lately.

No the problem is you cant see whats 2 steps in front of you.

You just cant see past what you think you've been told....and for the rest you just make things up.

Simple fact is we were never told the reasons why they were created.

We know how they were used but we have no clue why the first one was ever built.

No I'm looking at all the steps. Your just looking at the bottom of the stairs and failing to see the loose boards at the top. You're going to fall down the stairs and hurt yourself.

So do you. That's how we fill in the blanks. If it wasn't exsplained in story it's then up to us to use what was exsplained to come up with answers for what wasn't and there is no other answer that makes more sence.

You're right except for the no clue part. Everything we were shown is a clue to what we weren't. All you have to do is think.

I think it's funny you accuse me of being closed minded when you're the one who can't seem to use your imagination to fill in the gaps.

If it fills all or most of the gaps it has to be closer to the right answer than something that just creates more questions than answers. And every sinerio you've provided fills no gaps and only creates more questions. We're not looking for more questions, we're looking for answers. The more possible answers you can find the more logical the sinerio is and the more questions it creates the more your logic fails.

Rial Vestro wrote:Even given that scinario the "big buisness" type Quint would have to remove the free will from the robots programming before they could sell it as a slave.

Assuming that they "could".

Which is yet an other assumption on your part.

"Big buisness" may have found a way to mass produce the robot or even have forced the original creator to build a mass production factory but there is no reason to assume they would have been able to "redesign" the specs.

Holly crap, that's gotta be the most illogical thing you've ever said. If a quint intentionally designed a robot with free will why in the hell would he not know how to remove that programming?

The big buisness types wouldn't know how to remove it but then again they wouldn't know how to recreate the robot either. If they're going to buy the design and the programming specs from the scientist they're going to either learn how it opperates or have the scientist do the work on the mass production.

Now maybe they stole the designs and programs from the scientist and couldn't remove the free will program themselfs but then they'd still end up forceing the scientist to remove the program for them.

Rial Vestro wrote: There's enough evidence in what was shown to suport that...

A. Free Will was in fact a defect. Robots who the quints knew were effected because they became dissobediant were destroyed and/or recycled.

Thats not evidence that the issue was seen as a "defect".

Thats only evidence that the delt with disobedient robots.

So thats one fail for you.

That IS evidence that the issue was a defect. Why else would it have been done that way. Again you're failing to realize that there's no other exsplination.

"That's only evidence that they delt with dissobediant robots." bull ****. WHY did they did they deal with dissobediant robots. I just told you why. It was a defect.

Rial Vestro wrote:B. Transformers were slaves and were allways ment to be slaves or A would not apply.

A doesnt apply.

The fact that they were slaves i not evidence that they were originally created to "BE" slaves.

So thats 2 fails for you.

A does apply. WHY did they did they deal with dissobediant robots. I just told you why. It was a defect.

Rial Vestro wrote:There is no evidence to suport any other possibility.

There is no evidence period.

There IS evidence. Everything that we WERE shown is evidence to figure out what we WEREN'T shown. No evidence would mean that we never saw any flash backs from before the rebellion and weren't even shown that there was ever a rebellion. Everything from the rebellion and before it is evidence.

Rial Vestro wrote: No one would have any reason to fear before witnessing such an event.

Nonsense.

I doubt that was the first event of disobedience.And even before that event the Quints were cruel to their slaves.

They would have already known fear.

Weather or not that was the first time they witnessed it was not the issue. I said "such an" event not "that same event" meaning a simular event that may or may not have happened previously to the one we saw.

When they first learned fear is irrelivant what is relivant is that they did in fact have to learn fear. If they were never treated badly by their Quintesson masters there would be no reason to fear them. They have to have a reason to fear before they can be afraid.

Rial Vestro wrote:The robots witnessing have LEARNED fear. Something they would not of know about before the event.

Assumptions

That's a fact. You can't fear something for no reason. There has to be a reason behind it or the fear would not exsist.

What to fear is learned but fear itself is primal.

Here I'll make this easy for you. You never specified that difference in your original statement so insted it read as that they were born to be afraid of their Masters and at the same time learned to fear their masters.

It's one or the other not both.

What I've been talking about this whole time is the fear of. Even in my original statement I specified that I was talking about fear of the quintessons. You never specified any difference between the emotion of fear and the fear of something.

Rial Vestro wrote:Robots would NOT have feared their creators by nature. There's no reason for them to be afraid if they haven't had the exsperice yet.

Fear of those with dominion over you is natural.

And the actions of the Quints would have instilled fear.

It's not natural, it's taught. How would you know they have domination over you unless you've allready been or seen someone of your race be punished for dissobediance?

Rial Vestro wrote:You need to stop speaking in Oxi-morons.

No I need to stop speaking TO a Moron.

You know, I've avoided saying this for so long but now you've just gone and blantantly insulted me so, you're an idiot. You see multiple sinerios but fail to see how they don't apply to the facts we were given. You're trying to stick a square peg into a round hole because you can't see the square hole sitting right next to it or the round peg in your other hand.

You keep saying there's no evidence but there is and you're just not looking at it. To you the rebellion and everything before it never happened and the Transformers have allways been a free race because that's the only way the statement that there is no evidence would actully be true. Every single scene we saw is evidence.

Rial Vestro wrote:Without anything to be afraid of there can't be fear.

Thats incorrect to.

Just like every other emotion,Fear does not require logic or actual cause and effect.

People fall in love with images, with pictures, with the idea of what and who the other person is.

People are afraid of the dark, of whats under the bed, of whats in the closet, of the next day, of commitment.

None of these are logical or have a real cause.

That's incorrect.

Every emotion has a reason behind it. Pain is an emotion. No one feel pains for no reason. Pain is either externally (accidental or intentianl) or internally (health or age). In any case pain doesn't just happen for no reason. It's an indicator of danger as is fear.

There are irrational fears but even thoughs have reasons behind them. I allways question why they're called irrational and I think it's because the fear is simply irrational to most other people and can't be understood unless you have the fear yourself.

There are scicitrists you can go see to help overcome sertain fears and even they will tell you that every fear has a reason behind it. Of course the only way to overcome a fear is to face it and unless they can get down to the root of the fear, the reason for it's exsistance you can't face that fear.

I'm going to try to shorten this.

Rial Vestro wrote:There again you're continueing to overlook the same obvious fact yet again.

I'm not overlooking anything.Your just assuming you have all the answers.

Rial Vestro wrote: Free Will makes any slave hard to control.

hard does not equal impossible.

Rial Vestro wrote: If it was intentinally given to them they would of known how to remove it

Presumably.....if the original creator was willing to and still around.

There could have been number of reasons why they [1] couldnt remove free will or [2] chose not to remove free will.

Rial Vestro wrote: The only good slave is one without free will.

Again not completely true.

Particularly when you factor in the physiological profiles of the type of people that would created a slave race for retail sale.

This is why your argument is not logical.

Your assumeing the Quints "COULD" remove free will if they placed it there by intent..

And thats why your argument fails.Because there is no indication that the Quints could remove free will.

As a matter of fact the only attempt at removing free will that was saw failed.

Rial Vestro wrote:With Transformers free will was either intended in which case they would of known how to remove it from their programming

Assumption.

Rial Vestro wrote:You're just blind to it.

No your just failing to provide actual definitive evidence.

Rial Vestro wrote: But there is only one reason they could have been created.

No there are an endless amount of possible reasons for why they were created.

Rial Vestro wrote: Slaves with free will are unpredicatble, dangerous, and therefore useless.

Slaves with free will also present their masters with certin "Pleasures" that cant be uptained by a subservient drone.

Rial Vestro wrote: All of which leads to the only possible conclusion that they were intended to be slaves from the start and that free will was never intended to be part of their programming.

Fail.

Because your leaving out other possible motivations for their creation and the possible giving of free will by intent.

Rial Vestro wrote:It's process of elimination. Useing what we do know to figure out what we don't. A child can do it.

And yet you, an adult, cant add up the math.

Rial Vestro wrote:Data was intentinally built to be more human than machine and to have free will. Transformers were not and there is evidence of this in the cartoon that you yourself have even pointed out.

A scene where a robot became dissobediant and was recycled on the spot for doing so. Now if they were intentinally programed that way like data was the Quints would have no need to do that. The programming would have simply been removed.

And you fail again.

That "robot" in question was not one of the first.

I asked you to disprove that possibility that the first robot created by a Quint was not part of an effort similar to that of the creation of Data.

Rial Vestro wrote:I'm going to call you Watsen.

I'm going to get you a teacher since it appears your reading and comprehension skills are at a 5th grade level.

Heres the question again.....and this time read carefully.

Prove to me how its not possible that the first TF wasnt created by a Quint scientist who had the same goals as Doctor Noonien Soong [from Star Trek TNG] the man who created Data.

Again thats the first robot created.....not one from the era of mass production.

Rial Vestro wrote: I'm far from being Sherlock Holms but I'm sertainly closer to it than you are.

Not in your wildest dreams.

Holms knew how to look at the big picture., to see past what was in front of him.

You fail on both points.

Rial Vestro wrote:We're not looking for more questions, we're looking for answers. The more possible answers you can find the more logical the sinerio is and the more questions it creates the more your logic fails.

The problem here is your looking for simple answers.....and life is far from simple.One must always ask questions before attempting to fill in holes.

Thats why your logic fails.

Rial Vestro wrote:Holly crap, that's gotta be the most illogical thing you've ever said. If a quint intentionally designed a robot with free will why in the hell would he not know how to remove that programming?

Your assuming the Quint that originally created the design was part of the mass production team.

This is what I mean by you being closed minded and unimaginative.

There are plenty of real world examples of how an inventors plans get taken,used and corrupted by big business with no further involvement by the original inventor.

Rial Vestro wrote:If they're going to buy the design and the programming specs from the scientist they're going to either learn how it opperates or have the scientist do the work on the mass production.

They could have found a way to duplicate the work with out fully understanding every detail.

Further more if, as I suggested earlier, they used some life giving force they found on Cybertron, they may not have known how to remove that step of the plans and still have the same level of product.

Rial Vestro wrote:Now maybe they stole the designs and programs from the scientist and couldn't remove the free will program themselfs but then they'd still end up forceing the scientist to remove the program for them.

If they could force him.

If he was still alive.

Your argument are still full of assumptions.

Rial Vestro wrote:That IS evidence that the issue was a defect.

No its not.

Rial Vestro wrote: WHY did they did they deal with dissobediant robots. I just told you why. It was a defect.

Dealing with disobedient robots is not an indication of them considering the issue a defect.

It is simply an indication they delt with dissidence.

Rial Vestro wrote: WHY did they did they deal with dissobediant robots.

Because he was disobedient.

That does not indicate that they felt "free will" was the defect.

Rial Vestro wrote:There IS evidence.

Not definitive evidence.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Weather or not that was the first time they witnessed it was not the issue.

You made it the issue.

Rial Vestro wrote: I said "such an" event not "that same event"

Actually I believe you said "that event"

Rial Vestro wrote:When they first learned fear is irrelivant what is relivant is that they did in fact have to learn fear.

No they had to learn "WHAT" to fear.

Fear itself is not learned.

Rial Vestro wrote: If they were never treated badly by their Quintesson masters there would be no reason to fear them.

They would have reason enough just from knowing that the Quints could turn them off.

Rial Vestro wrote: You can't fear something for no reason.

Nonsense.

People fear nothing all the time.

Rial Vestro wrote: You never specified that difference in your original statement

I did specify....very clearly in fact.

I said a number of times that "fear" was primal and not taught.

I said "what to fear" had to be learned.

Dont blame me if you cant follow.

Rial Vestro wrote:What I've been talking about this whole time is the fear of.

Which you didnt make clear.

But just to be even clearer......I believe the TF's would have feared the Quints by nature.

Its natural to fear that which one can not control and its even more natural to fear that which controls you.

Think about how early peoples feared the weather,the sky , and the Gods.

Rial Vestro wrote: How would you know they have domination over you unless you've allready been or seen someone of your race be punished for dissobediance?

Is your imagination that dim.

You come to life and the first thing you see your going to assume is your mother,creator,god.

Even seeing the Quints working on other robots, giving orders, programing.....any of these actions would give the robots an understanding of who the masters were.

Rial Vestro wrote:You know, I've avoided saying this for so long but now you've just gone and blantantly insulted me so, you're an idiot.

Excuse me.....are you claiming I insulted you first???

Not much more then 2 post before you called me "stupid" and claimed I must be on drugs.Dont you think those were insults????

Seems you can dish it out but you get all sensitive when its given back to you.

Dont try to claim I'm the one insulting first here.

And its funny ,your calling me an idiot, and I'm not the only one here telling you your wrong and so is your argument.

Rial Vestro wrote: You see multiple sinerios but fail to see how they don't apply to the facts we were given. You're trying to stick a square peg into a round hole because you can't see the square hole sitting right next to it or the round peg in your other hand.

Yes I see multiple senerios, because the evidence we have suggest that they are all possible, they all fit the real facts that we were given.

Your just looking for the simplest answer, life and logic suggest that the real answers are limitless.

"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations"

Rial Vestro wrote: To you the rebellion and everything before it never happened

Not at all.I never said anything like that.

I just see that as being the end result of a much more complex and divers series of events.

Rial Vestro wrote: and the Transformers have allways been a free race because that's the only way the statement that there is no evidence would actully be true. Every single scene we saw is evidence.

Its evidence of those particular events.....it is not evidence of their true origins, of their true purpos, of the true reasons they came into being in the first place.

See there are a few things your leaving out is all your calculations.

And the biggest one is "WHY".

"Why" were the TF's created in the first place, what need were they really fullfilling for the Quints.

Remember, before Cybertron was a factory Cybertron supported organic life.

And before you go there I'm not just refering to what we were told in Beast Machines.

There is evidence that strongly suggest that Cybertron was a laboratory [or sorts] before it was a factory for robots.

The way I see it, robot creation was just the last and most successful project being conducted on Cybertron to fulfill some need for the Quints.

Rial Vestro wrote:That's incorrect.

Nope its correct.

Rial Vestro wrote:Every emotion has a reason behind it.

Not every emotion.

Rial Vestro wrote: Pain is an emotion.

No it is not.

Pain is a physiological response to stimuli.

Pain can evoke an emotion but pain itself is not an emotion.

Rial Vestro wrote: No one feel pains for no reason.

Thats not completely true either.

Rial Vestro wrote: Pain is either externally (accidental or intentianl) or internally (health or age).

In any case pain is not an emotion.

Here are a list of emotions.

Basic emotion
Joy
Acceptance
Fear
Surprise
Sadness
Disgust
Anger
Anticipation

Advanced emotion [Composed of elements of the basice]
Optimism
Love
Submission
Awe
Disappointment
Remorse
Contempt
Aggressiveness

As you can see "pain" is not among them.

I'll make this really short.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Rial Vestro wrote: But there is only one reason they could have been created.

No there are an endless amount of possible reasons for why they were created.

Only if you ignore every single event leading up to the rebellion and the rebellion itself.

If you actully look at the evidence which you seem incapable of doing you can illiminate several of what you think are endless possibilitys.

See my way the only question we can not answer is "Why would they use robots with free will?"

Your way you end up CREATING MORE questions than answers. Every single other possibility that you have brought up this entire debate is illogical because non of them answer questions, they create more questions.

The goal is to try and find answers with the information we are given, this is logical and is what I am doing.

What you are doing is randomly thowing out impossible sinirios which answer nothing and creates more questions when paired with the information we are given. This is illogical and pointless.

Is this even on topic anymore?

Someone tell me, there's no way I'm reading all of that.

its quasi on topic. they are areguing about the origins of alpha trion/transformers.
granted its veered away from shattered glass, but its still reletively on topic.

In communist russia topic reads you

Rial Vestro wrote:I'll make this really short.

Thank you.

I'll try to keep the reply short too.

Rial Vestro wrote:Only if you ignore every single event leading up to the rebellion and the rebellion itself.

No.

It is because of every single event that lead up to the rebellion that suggest the TF's were created with some other grander purpose then just slavery.

And again if you would just drop your preconceptions and open your mind [which I know to be impossible for you] you would see the other possibilities.

Rial Vestro wrote:See my way the only question we can not answer is "Why would they use robots with free will?"

There are some possible reasons.

Rial Vestro wrote:Your way you end up CREATING MORE questions than answers. Every single other possibility that you have brought up this entire debate is illogical because non of them answer questions, they create more questions.

The goal is to try and find answers with the information we are given, this is logical and is what I am doing.

What you are doing is randomly thowing out impossible sinirios which answer nothing and creates more questions when paired with the information we are given. This is illogical and pointless.

Which actually makes them logical.

It is logical to ask questions.

Its logical to look at the bigger picture and see more questions then answers.

Questions are the begining of logic and wisdom.

Quick and easy answers is the domain of the ignorant.

The true goal is to try and find answers that not only fit the info we were given, but also that those answers seem likely ,reasonable and most importantly realistic.

And I say that "realizim" is most important because threw out this debate we have been treating the events as if they were "real world events".We havent been treating it like a kids cartoon.

And if we are treating the issue as a real world event then we cant just accept that all Quints, threw out their history, were "evil".

We cant just accept that all they originally wanted was a bunch of slaves.

There must have originally been some grander purpose, some greater need, that they were trying to fulfill with their creations.

The fact that the TF's were not their only attempt at cybernetic beings suggest that they needed to create something for some great need.

From what we know there were 3 different experiments being conducted on Cybertron.And only the goals of 2 of them seem to be geared at creating a subservient race.....for what ever reasons.The goals of the 3rd experiment being conducted on Cybertron seem pretty vague.

The way I see it that indicate that the Quints that originally worked on Cybertron were sent there to create a solution to some problem Quint society was facing.

But again it seems your limited imagination wont let you see past the simple little questions and answers.

Counterpunch wrote:Is this even on topic anymore?

Someone tell me, there's no way I'm reading all of that.

Its kind of on topic.

We can take it to pm if you like.

Name_Violation wrote:
In communist russia topic reads you

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:We can take it to pm if you like.

do not want.

I keep tabs on this clam bake. Unfortunately the best result looks to be an agree to disagree. It doesn't look like either side is budging on their veiw point.



but by all means please, continue,...

Name_Violation wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:We can take it to pm if you like.

do not want.

I keep tabs on this clam bake. Unfortunately the best result looks to be an agree to disagree. It doesn't look like either side is budging on their veiw point.



but by all means please, continue,...

As you wish.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:The true goal is to try and find answers that not only fit the info we were given, but also that those answers seem likely ,reasonable and most importantly realistic.

Short and simple reply.

There's a difference between ASKING questions and CREATING questions. How can you ever even hope to find any answers if all you're doing is creating more questions.

The most logical answer is useually the simpleist one. However we do still have 1 question without an answer and I'm betting if we found the answer to that it might actully change what I belive to be the most logical answers to all the other questions.

It's like a puzzle, got all the sides of the rubix cube solved except for this one block that's out of place and we're going to have to shift the whole cube around before it fits right.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Short and simple reply.

There's a difference between ASKING questions and CREATING questions.

I'm sorry, I really am, but I have never heard anything so stupid, ignorant, illogical and idiotic ever in my life............and after 2 wifes and a few years of debating with you thats saying a lot.

And I dont mean that as an insult but did you really put any thought into that before you posted it????

Every question ever asked is the creation of the person asking it.

Yes some people might have the same questions but not every person will have the same questions after seeing/reading something. The plain and simple fact is each question is the creation of the person asking.

A question may be inspired by outside means like a show or a story but the question is always the creation of the one asking.

I know it looks like I'm repeating my self but I dont see how you could have even thought to say what you just said.

Questions are interpretive, they are based on perspective, point of view and are as unique as the persons asking.

Rial Vestro wrote:How can you ever even hope to find any answers if all you're doing is creating more questions.

The questions in "question" [no pun intended] are inspired by what we were shown in the show.

They come from a deeper look into the events shown and years of study and maturity.

Rial Vestro wrote:The most logical answer is useually the simpleist one.

That is simply false.

Rial Vestro wrote: However we do still have 1 question without an answer and I'm betting if we found the answer to that it might actully change what I belive to be the most logical answers to all the other questions.

Which question are you referring to again?

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Every question ever asked is the creation of the person asking it.

Not at all.

Asking a question is just that, asking.

Then you're given an answer and it's the answer that has the possibility of creating more questions.

It goes like this. Someone asks a question about something they have observed or been told about that they don't fully understand. Someone else answers the question and either the conversation ends there or the answer just causes more questions to be asked.

Once you have all the answers there's no need to ask any more questions. Questions are only good for finding answers and most of the answers we have allready so there's no point in asking the question.

The Quintessons were useing Trasformers as slaves and you're asking what the Transformers were created for. It's kinda backwards to even ask that question when the answer is right there in front of you. You seem to think they could of been created for some other purpose other than what they were used for and the simple fact is there's absolutly no evidence to suport that they were ever ment for anything else. Don't you think that if they had some other intended purpos that it would of been mentioned durring Rodimus Prime's history lesson with the Matrix?

When you ask a question, you're looking for answers. When you create a question, the answers have allready been provided and you're only seeking attention.

This is just as bad as what my brother does. Ask the same question over and over again without listening to hear what the answer is.

Rial Vestro wrote: However we do still have 1 question without an answer and I'm betting if we found the answer to that it might actully change what I belive to be the most logical answers to all the other questions.

Which question are you referring to again?

Why did the Quintessons use the free willed robots?

More spicifically, you've allready pointed out that a robot was seen being recycled on the spot for being dissobediant which means the issue was recognizable and known about. No matter how much you want to argue that the may not of known about the issue you're the one who provided evidence that they in fact did know about it. So the question remains is why they continued useing them when they knew about the risk involved?

Rial Vestro wrote:Not at all.

Absolutely.

Rial Vestro wrote:
Asking a question is just that, asking.

Then you're given an answer and it's the answer that has the possibility of creating more questions.

It goes like this. Someone asks a question about something they have observed or been told about that they don't fully understand. Someone else answers the question and either the conversation ends there or the answer just causes more questions to be asked.

Once you have all the answers there's no need to ask any more questions. Questions are only good for finding answers and most of the answers we have allready so there's no point in asking the question.

Completely illogical.

There is no such thing as having "all the answers" because as I said before its all interpretive, its all open to the individuals point of view.

Particularly because most answers ,besides those about math, are just the opinion of the one answering.

In short, the answers that satisfy your questions may not satisfy the questions of the next person.

The Quintessons were useing Trasformers as slaves and you're asking what the Transformers were created for. It's kinda backwards to even ask that question when the answer is right there in front of you.

Its simply ignorant to assume that the answer is as simple as "they wanted slaves".Evidence of what they were used for is not evidence of what they were originally created to do.

If the Quints had only made one attempt at making a artificial race then I might agree the answer might be simple.

But the fact that the TF's werent their first creations, and that indicates a greater need for their creations other then just wanting slaves.

And the fact that there was a different kind of experiment also being conducted on Cybertron, one that had nothing to do with creating a artificial race, further indicates that "wanting slaves" wasnt the true reason the TF's were created.

You seem to think they could of been created for some other purpose other than what they were used for and the simple fact is there's absolutly no evidence to suport that they were ever ment for anything else.

Your forgetting their first creations and the other experiment being conducted on Cybertron by a Quint before the TF's were created.

3 different projects were conducted on Cybertron and only 2 of them involved creating a separate race.

That is evidence that suggest "slaves" werent their primary goal.

Don't you think that if they had some other intended purpos that it would of been mentioned durring Rodimus Prime's history lesson with the Matrix?

No, and why would it???

It was a condensed narrative given by the point of view of the old Autobot leaders.

The history lesson contained no info about where the Quints originally came from,it contained no info about the other projects the Quints conducted on Cybertron.

Theres no reason to assume that the old Matrix bearers would have known why they were truly brought on line.

Just like Data didnt know why he was made till he met his father/creator and was told.

When you ask a question, you're looking for answers. When you create a question, the answers have allready been provided and you're only seeking attention.

Completely and totally illogical.

A question may be either a linguistic expression used to make a request for information, or else the request itself made by such an expression. This information is provided with an answer.

Questions are interpretive and open to the point of view of the person asking.

All questions are the creation of the person asking.


Question:
–noun
1. a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get information in reply.
2. a problem for discussion or under discussion; a matter for investigation.
3. a matter of some uncertainty or difficulty; problem (usually fol. by of): It was simply a question of time.
4. a subject of dispute or controversy.
5. a proposal to be debated or voted on, as in a meeting or a deliberative assembly.
6. the procedure of putting a proposal to vote.
7. Politics. a problem of public policy submitted to the voters for an expression of opinion.
8. Law.
a. a controversy that is submitted to a judicial tribunal or administrative agency for decision.
b. the interrogation by which information is secured.
c. Obsolete. judicial examination or trial.
9. the act of asking or inquiring; interrogation; query.
10. inquiry into or discussion of some problem or doubtful matter.

Why did the Quintessons use the free willed robots?

As I said , with out knowing the true reason they wanted to create a race of artificial beings we cant really answer that question.

But there are any number of reasons for wanting free will.

More spicifically, you've allready pointed out that a robot was seen being recycled on the spot for being dissobediant which means the issue was recognizable and known about.

But whats not known is how long it took for a robot to rebel.

No matter how much you want to argue that the may not of known about the issue you're the one who provided evidence that they in fact did know about it.

I argued it was possible they didnt know about the problem till it was too late to do anything about it.That example or anything you have claimed doesnt change that possibility that they didnt know till it was too late.

So the question remains is why they continued useing them when they knew about the risk involved?

Which kind of indicates a few answers.

A] they knew and couldnt do any thing about it
B] free will was intended.
C] they didnt care and derived pleasure from the treatment they gave the robots.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

You seem to think they could of been created for some other purpose other than what they were used for and the simple fact is there's absolutly no evidence to suport that they were ever ment for anything else.

Your forgetting their first creations and the other experiment being conducted on Cybertron by a Quint before the TF's were created.

3 different projects were conducted on Cybertron and only 2 of them involved creating a separate race.

That is evidence that suggest "slaves" werent their primary goal.

Not sure what other exsperiments you're refering to but their first creations before the Transformers were the Transorganics or Technorganics, one of thoughs terms...

And who says they weren't ment to be slaves allso? You know before they went bisserk and ripped one of their creator's faces off.

Don't you think that if they had some other intended purpos that it would of been mentioned durring Rodimus Prime's history lesson with the Matrix?

No, and why would it???

Maybe because the Matrix gave the entire history of the Transformers race.

The history lesson contained no info about where the Quints originally came from,it contained no info about the other projects the Quints conducted on Cybertron.

Which is rather irrelivant. The history lesson focused on the Transformers race not the Quints or their other creations. The only reason the Quints were mentioned at all is in relation to creating the Transformers and what they were created for would be part of that relation.

No matter how much you want to argue that the may not of known about the issue you're the one who provided evidence that they in fact did know about it.

I argued it was possible they didnt know about the problem till it was too late to do anything about it.That example or anything you have claimed doesnt change that possibility that they didnt know till it was too late.

How does them recycleing a robot for dissobediant not prove that they were aware that the robots could be dissobediant? You're speaking in oxi-morons again. You've basically just said that the scene dissproves it's own exsistance.

Rial Vestro wrote:Not sure what other exsperiments you're refering to but their first creations before the Transformers were the Transorganics or Technorganics, one of thoughs terms...

And who says they weren't ment to be slaves allso? You know before they went bisserk and ripped one of their creator's faces off.

Trans-organics.

And considering the wide verity of animal types it seems they would have been ineffective as slaves.

Althu I'm sure they could have been useful in other subservient ways.Particularly in matters of war, protection.

The other experiment/project that was being conducted on Cybertron was into dark magics by a Quint named Mara-Al-Utha.

He experiments took place before the Quints created robots and presumable before the trans-organics.

These events pose the questions.....why were so many experiments being conducted on Cybertron?

And why were these projects so divers if the goals were the same???

Further more the Quints tried to halt the evolution of an alien race.All of these event indicate that Quint society had some great need.

Maybe it was economical, maybe it was recovery from some disaster, maybe it was to safe guard their "apparent" small numbers [even thou they are long lived].But they obviously felt threatened.

I believe the the TF's were originally part of a plan to over come what ever the Quints felt was an obstetrical to their continued existence.

Maybe because the Matrix gave the entire history of the Transformers race.

The fact is it didnt.

It gave a short narrative.

And it seemed to only give the prescriptive of the Autobot leaders speaking at the time.

Which is rather irrelivant.

Hardly.

No less the true reasons the TF's were created could have been considered just as irrelevant to the purpos of the lesson being given at the time.

Not to mention the information in question may not have been contained in the Matrix.

The only reason the Quints were mentioned at all is in relation to creating the Transformers and what they were created for would be part of that relation.

Theres no reason to assume the Matrix would have contained that info.

Theres no reason to assume the Matrix was found/created at the begining when the first TF's were built.

The Matrix only contained the info stored by its past bearers.

Theres no reason to assume that one of the first tf's created by a Quint was a bearer.

How does them recycleing a robot for dissobediant not prove that they were aware that the robots could be dissobediant?

You make it sound like you have proof that the event of the "recycling" accrued early on.

Theres no evidence to support that.

On the contrary there is evidence to support the idea that the indecent with the disobedient robot accrued a long time after the first TF's were created.

And thats what I mean by it being "too late" to do anything about it.

The evidence suggest that a great number of years past, maybe hundreds....maybe thounds, had past between the first TF's creation and the indecent of the "disobedient robot".

You're speaking in oxi-morons again. You've basically just said that the scene dissproves it's own exsistance.

The seen is an indication that the Quints did not deal with the issue till they past the point of no return.

It was already "too late" at the time of that indecent.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

How does them recycleing a robot for dissobediant not prove that they were aware that the robots could be dissobediant?

You make it sound like you have proof that the event of the "recycling" accrued early on.

How is that? Nothing I said has anything to do with WHEN that event happened and when it happened has nothing to do with weather or not it DID happen.

On the contrary there is evidence to support the idea that the indecent with the disobedient robot accrued a long time after the first TF's were created.

And thats what I mean by it being "too late" to do anything about it.

That's rather contridicting yet again.

If they recycled a robot for being dissobediant then they were in fact "doing something about it" it was not too late to do anything about it untill the rebellion started which is when dissobediant robots would be gathered into numbers rather than a few individuals.

There's no reason to belive that one case that was shown was the only case. There were probly others before and after him. The simple fact is that as long as these "insidents" were kept issolated to a few individual robots the Quints were still capable of doing something to prevent the rebeillion from happening. It's not till the rebellion actully happens that they're to late to do anything about it.

You're speaking in oxi-morons again. You've basically just said that the scene dissproves it's own exsistance.

The seen is an indication that the Quints did not deal with the issue till they past the point of no return.

It was already "too late" at the time of that indecent.

No it wasn't too late. If it really was too late by that time then there were no simular insisdents before it and that one insident was what sparked the rebellion. So you're sugesting that the rebellion started right when that one robot was recycled.

Rial Vestro wrote:How is that?

Because the impression I got from your post sounded like its proof of what they did to the "first" disobedient robot.

If I misunderstood you I'm sorry.

Nothing I said has anything to do with WHEN that event happened and when it happened has nothing to do with weather or not it DID happen.

weather it "DID" happen was never in question.

That's rather contridicting yet again.

Not in any way.

If they recycled a robot for being dissobediant then they were in fact "doing something about it"

What I ment was doing something about "free will".

About stopping it in its tracks before they were out numbered by robots with free will.

it was not too late to do anything about it untill the rebellion started

It was already too late by the time they were out numbered by robots with free will and the ability to grow past their original programing.

And that was long before the rebelion started.

There's no reason to belive that one case that was shown was the only case.

I never suggested it was.

The simple fact is that as long as these "insidents" were kept issolated to a few individual robots the Quints were still capable of doing something to prevent the rebeillion from happening.

I completly disagree.

Short of shutting down every robot simultaneously the Quints had very little hope of preventing the rebelion.

Thats my point of saying it was already too late.

The robots had already grew beyond their original programing.The disobedience proves that. And althou the Quints had the ability to shut them all down at once I dont believe they would have.

Theres no indication that the Quints ever considered that the robots would learn how to conspire together.

No it wasn't too late.

It was as I explained above.

So you're sugesting that the rebellion started right when that one robot was recycled.

Actually no.

I believe that the Rebelion took place 100's ,maybe 10000's, of years after the scene we were shown.

But my point of the issue being past the point of no return has to do with what the robots were learning.

Once the Robot were capable of by bassing their original programing it was too late.

And I dont just mean "free will" and "sentiance".Yes the terms are synonymous some of the time but not always.

Even with personalities and free will I'm sure their core programing still dominated most of their lives.

But once they learned to bypass that programing, learned the value of freedom, learned to conspire, this is when it was trully too late for the Quints to really do anything about it.

By that time the Quints had grown too arogrant, lazy and dependent on their slaves.They wouldnt be willing to just shut them all down at once.

And shutting them all down at once was really the Quints only hope at preventing a rebelion.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Nothing I said has anything to do with WHEN that event happened and when it happened has nothing to do with weather or not it DID happen.

weather it "DID" happen was never in question.

And the way you worded your post made it sound like it was.

it was not too late to do anything about it untill the rebellion started

It was already too late by the time they were out numbered by robots with free will and the ability to grow past their original programing.

And that was long before the rebelion started.

Not really. As long as the robots have not yet figured out their own capabilitys the Quints still had a chance to prevent the rebellion from happening.

In human terms useually the stronger groups of people inslave the weaker groups. This is to say that any 1 on 1 would turn out badly for the slave race. But the slaves do have the ability to overpower their masters they just have to learn that they're stronger in numbers first.

Or... I don't even know why I thought of this just now but there was a movie which I'll leave nameless rather than putting a spoiler alert even though I think everyone's probly allready seen it by now. But someone at the end of the movie asks "Why do you let this guy boss you around?" and they answer "because he's bigger than... we use to be..." and it was only in that moment that they realized they were stronger than their former boss.

For the Trasformers. They may not even realize right away just how strong they are or how weak the Quintesson's are. And they would have to figure that out before they could start the rebellion.

The simple fact is that as long as these "insidents" were kept issolated to a few individual robots the Quints were still capable of doing something to prevent the rebeillion from happening.

I completly disagree.

Short of shutting down every robot simultaneously the Quints had very little hope of preventing the rebelion.

Thats my point of saying it was already too late.

The robots had already grew beyond their original programing.The disobedience proves that. And althou the Quints had the ability to shut them all down at once I dont believe they would have.

Theres no indication that the Quints ever considered that the robots would learn how to conspire together.

Being that they are robots I really don't think conspireing togeather was really all that much of an issue. I just think they didn't really understand the difference in strength between them and the Quints yet.

So you're sugesting that the rebellion started right when that one robot was recycled.

Actually no.

I believe that the Rebelion took place 100's ,maybe 10000's, of years after the scene we were shown.

But my point of the issue being past the point of no return has to do with what the robots were learning.

Once the Robot were capable of by bassing their original programing it was too late.

And I dont just mean "free will" and "sentiance".Yes the terms are synonymous some of the time but not always.

Even with personalities and free will I'm sure their core programing still dominated most of their lives.

But once they learned to bypass that programing, learned the value of freedom, learned to conspire, this is when it was trully too late for the Quints to really do anything about it.

By that time the Quints had grown too arogrant, lazy and dependent on their slaves.They wouldnt be willing to just shut them all down at once.

And shutting them all down at once was really the Quints only hope at preventing a rebelion.

They wouldn't really have to do it all at once. They would after the rebellion started if they were even capable of doing so which I don't think they ever were.

But any time before the rebellion they could have prevented it. It's not a matter of what they were willing to do but what they were capable of doing. And they were obviously capable of disposing of robots in small numbers.

They were allso capable of stopping the production of more robots, unless of course the robots themselfs continued to produce more of their own kind regardless of weather or not the Quints wanted to keep makeing them.