The Energon Pub

by **slycherrychunks** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:11 pm

I'm sure I've read it myself - but where also are biology and genetics mentioned in canon?

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:12 pm

Nemesis Cyberplex wrote:
slycherrychunks wrote:
Tramp wrote:The TF children grow up.
When did this happen?
That's what I'd like to know. The only relatable example I could think of was Hot Rod becoming Rodimus Prime.....but removing the Matrix reverted him back to Hot Rod, so that's not usable.

Tramp: "Look at Kup, I don't think he'd be built old!"

For which the argument is that it's similar to a car showing signs of breaking down, but he'll try and use his "Laws" to combat that conpletely logical assessment too.

by **Tramp** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:37 pm

Damolisher wrote:
Nemesis Cyberplex wrote:
slycherrychunks wrote:
Tramp wrote:The TF children grow up.
When did this happen?
That's what I'd like to know. The only relatable example I could think of was Hot Rod becoming Rodimus Prime.....but removing the Matrix reverted him back to Hot Rod, so that's not usable.

Tramp: "Look at Kup, I don't think he'd be built old!"

For which the argument is that it's similar to a car showing signs of breaking down, but he'll try and use his "Laws" to combat that conpletely logical assessment too.

That's just it. He wasn't built "old", but he did grow old. Secondly, do we really know how Kup was born? We never saw him being created. In fact, we very rarely see any of them created. Very few TFs have been created on screen. Nealry all of them have been around long before the story begins. Even the Dinobots or Constructicons came from Cybertron according to most continuities, and had been there for a very long time. We don't see them created. We don't see Prime created.

Secondly, Even with Protoforms, that does not make it their b[]only option[/b]. You are acting like the use fo manufactured protoforms is the only possible method of creating new Transformers when canon specifically states otherwise.

It does not mater that Transformers are robotic. They are still living things. They are still life forms, whether you care to believe it or not. From a canon perspective we never see TFs mate, but the cumulative secondary evidence still supports their capability to do so. I have posted evidence from canon that clearly shows that they have that capability; that TFs being capable of reproducing through some form of sexual means is possible and likely. There is also plenty of "Fanon" stuff out there to support it as well, but that is besides the point. Canon does show the posibilities of them being capable of sexual reproduction. Science demands that they be capable of it. There is nothing in the majority of canon that states that TFs are restricted to manufacturing new Cybettroninas from protoforms. Nothing in the greater canon of TFs totally eliminates their possibility of procreating through sexual means. One source which contradicts all others, because of one man's bias, is not prevalent evidence. It does not overthrow all the rest.

Answer me this. From a biological standpoint. what purpose would genders or romance, or courtship serve a species of life regardless of its make-up if not reproduction? Why would a robotic species, or a crystaline species or and organic species evolve with genders or engage in courtship if not for reproduction?

Simply put, they don't serve any function but reproduction. That is their sole purpose.
Transformers have genders, according to the majority of canon. They have sexes. Transformers engage in courtship. They fall in love. They marry. What other purpose could this serve if not reproduction. It isn't something that developed after meeting humans. It is something they have done since Primus first created them.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:42 pm

NO IT ISN'T! They have genders because HASBRO WANTED TO MARKET TOWARDS GIRLS! THAT'S ALL! Can you not tell the difference between a machine and an organic creature? Have you ever seen any evidence Transformers mate OTHER than your sad, bottom of the barrel excuse about "They grow old?!" And NO, that Japanese Manga doesn't count since it's not Canon. These so-called "Relationships" exist as a story point. They're ****' ROBOTS, for the 80th time, are you unable to bloody see there is NOTHING ORGANIC ABOUT THEM!!!! ROBOTS IN DISGUISE! ROBOTS! ROBOTS! **** ROBOTS! Damn! I am seriously beginning to get pissed off with the fact that somehow you STILL try and claim they have sex and reproduce. THEY DON'T **** REPRODUCE! Anyone with half a brain can tell what a sentient machine is, and what a human/animal is. Only animals mate. (And humans are animals, going by genetic make-up.)

Also, Simon Furman confirms there's no reproducing, and I'd believe HIM before I believe you.

by **Tramp** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:59 pm

Damolisher wrote:NO IT ISN'T! They have genders because HASBRO WANTED TO MARKET TOWARDS GIRLS! THAT'S ALL! Can you not tell the difference between a machine and an organic creature? Have you ever seen any evidence Transformers mate OTHER than your sad, bottom of the barrel excuse about "They grow old?!" And NO, that Japanese Manga doesn't count since it's not Canon.

Damaolisher, stop shouting. IF you need to emphasise, use bold, not all caps. All caps is shouting, and is extremely rude.

Secondly, Robotic or organic does not matter. It makes no difference if a TF is robotic or organic. They are life forms. that is all that matters.

Yes, from a marketing stand point, we have female Transformers in order to bring in the female viewers and buyers. I am talking from an in universe perspective. Forget about marketing. And, yes, the Japanese manga is canon. You cannot prove otherwise. And for the purpose of this discussion all of it is relevant. Japanes or American or UK, Carton or comic. What does the majority of Canon show? The majority of canon from every source, shows Transformers with actual genders. IT shows them engaged in courtship and forming romantic relationships It shows them being husbands, wives, and parents. It shows them being brothers ans sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. This is evidence of sexual reproduction being possible in a robotic life form. This is what most canon sources show throughout the past 23 years. Only one canon source appears to contradict this, because of one man's biases. That does not out-weigh the other sources.

It does not matter if a life form is organic or not. A robotic life form still has to follow the same criteria as an organic one. A crystaline life form has to follow the same criteria. A silicon base d life form as well. It does not matter what the life form is made of. They all must follow the same criteria.

Life is life. The base components of that life is completely irrelevant. so continually repeating that they are robots does not make them any less life forms or any less bound by the seven criteria of life. They are robotic life, not just automatons.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:02 pm

Hey, here's a newsflash: I don't give a rat's arse if I'm sounding rude or not. STOP TYPING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN! It's not science, it's a ****ing cartoon. Can you not tell the difference? IT DOESN'T HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY CRITERIA BECAUSE IT ISN'T REAL LIFE! And if you don't understand THAT, it's obvious I've been wasting my time arguing with a git. I swear to God, they aren't ****ing organic lifeforms! Do I need to post a giant arse neon sign?! STOP APPLYING ****IN' REAL LIFE CONVENTIONS TO A CARTOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tramp, here's what your pathetic excuses for your argument are:

"7 points of life, they're needed, because I say so! It doesn't matter if anyone wants to ignore these, because they clearly are, if I say they exist, they exist! Marriages and Parenthood is shown in some crappy manga that no-one remembers or even cares about except me! They can reproduce, dammit, because even though we've never been shown it happening, and even though they're called robots, they refer to themselves as robots, and act like robots, and have the internal circuitry of robots, and we've never been shown any organic parts in, like, ever, they're still organic."

Your argument's like Frieza after his battle with Goku on Namek- No legs to stand on.

by **slycherrychunks** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:20 pm

Tramp wrote:From a biological standpoint. what purpose would genders or romance, or courtship serve a species of life regardless of its make-up if not reproduction? Why would a robotic species, or a crystaline species or and organic species evolve with genders or engage in courtship if not for reproduction?

The examples of TFs being constructed or brought to life through non-sexual means actually outnumber these examples of "romance" and "courtship". They are also explicitly described and shown on screen rather just implied. Why is it that you can just completely ignore the overwhelming evidence against your beliefs?

To answer your question though: Youre right, its fair to say that genders, romance and coutship all relate to reproduction in living things - but the reason Transformers do all these things is that hack writers have to anthropomorphise/dumb down the characters because they cant write fiction about advanced alien machines in a mature and convincing way.
The key word here is alien, as in not like us.
If they were just like us, had the same drives and biological functions, then as Damolisher put it, it would be lame. Accurate to some people's preconceived expectations of whats consitutes a life form and it's behavoir, yes - but unimaginative, predictactable and above all lame.

by **Tramp** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:02 pm

slycherrychunks wrote:
Tramp wrote:From a biological standpoint. what purpose would genders or romance, or courtship serve a species of life regardless of its make-up if not reproduction? Why would a robotic species, or a crystaline species or and organic species evolve with genders or engage in courtship if not for reproduction?
The examples of TFs being constructed or brought to life through non-sexual means actually outnumber these examples of "romance" and "courtship". They are also explicitly described and shown on screen rather just implied. Why is it that you can just completely ignore the overwhelming evidence against your beliefs?

To answer your question though: Youre right, its fair to say that genders, romance and coutship all relate to reproduction in living things - but the reason Transformers do all these things is that hack writers have to anthropomorphise/dumb down the characters because they cant write fiction about advanced alien machines in a mature and convincing way. The key word here is alien, as in not like us. If they were just like us, had the same drives and biological functions, then as Damolisher put it, it would be lame. Accurate to some people's preconceived expectations of whats consitutes a life form and it's behavoir, yes - but unimaginative, predictactable and above all lame.

Alien doesn't mean squat. So they are alien. So what! It doesn't matter. These criteria are necesary for survival. That is what makes them universal. It doesn't matter if it is Earth life, alien life, organic life robotic life, or what have you. These criteria aren't arbitrary, they aren't just "some people's[/b] idea of what "should" constitute life. They are what constitute life. They are what every form of life needs to survive both individually and as a species.

No. What would be "unimaginative" is saying that they are just robots which have to be built to create more. That is unimaginative. It takes imagination to consider teh possibiklity of a robotic life form which can reproduce through autopoietic means, which have real genders, which can have families. That takes imagination.

Secondly, the writers didn't antrhopomorphize them, They were already anthrompomorphic to begin with. They are humanoid in design for starters. Why wouldn't they be anthropomorhic? If they weren't, the audience could not relate to them It is that relatability that made the show and comics popular. Do you honestly believe the Transformers would be as big as it is if they didn't make them anthropomorphic? I would hope not.

On top of that, sexual reproduction is not limited to humans. It is not limited to animals. Plants reproduce sexually as well. Are they anthropomorphic? No. There is nothing "lame" about the idea that a robotic life form would reproduce sexually. They did it in Batteries Not Included as well. It isn't that unbelievable. These are living beings with males and females, with romantic relationships courtship marriage and families. Yes, this all helps the readers to more closely identify withn them, and that is a good thing. but from an in universe perspective, it also enhances the fact that these are mmore than just robots. It enhances the fact that these are living beings; beings that love, hate, laugh, cry, live and die. We can identify with that.

IT would be so easy to think of them as "just" robots. It takes much more imagination to think of them as living beings who are capable of bringing life into this world from their own bodies just like any other life form in the universe. That takes imagination.

by **Nemesis Cyberplex** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:48 pm

I would like to point to this website as reference:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-def ... f-life.htm

A couple of things I would like to pull from this:

Every proposed definition of life suffers from one of two problems: The definition is sufficiently broad that it allows things generally accepted as non-living to be defined as alive; or is so specific that should more exotic forms of life come to light, they might not fit the classic view.

The most common definition of life requires that a thing meet seven criteria to be considered alive. Some definitions do not require all seven be present, while others require additional components be present.

To further define life, many scientists include extremely specific criteria, such as the requirement that lipids and proteins be present. While this makes sense when dealing exclusively with life on Earth, other scientists worry it will present classification problems should 'life' be discovered on other planets or deep-space objects.

For now, the qualitative definition of life must suffice; but as science makes new discoveries and meets new challenges--be they extra-terrestrial microbes or classes of artificial intelligence--our criteria will likely evolve to encompass new forms of life, and our understanding thereof.

This tells me several things:

A: the definition of life is nothing more than a way for scientists to catargorize things.

B: it determines that it is not a perfect definition, as there are several different variations of it, some that add more criteria, some that don't use as many.

C: Apparently at one time viruses were considered alive...meaning that it is an evolving criteria.

D: It plainly states that the seven criteria are for the catagorizing of life on earth, & admits that were we to find life on other planets that did not meet said criteria, the criteria would likely change to suit the new life form.

& finally: Since Transformers are not from Earth, the seven criteria you so cherrish do not have to apply for them to be considered living.

Oh, & more importantly: Transformers, in its entirety, is a work of fiction. a work of fiction, by definition, does not have to follow the rules of real life, therefore even if aliens robots did not meet said criteria, being fiction by definition, they can still be considered living. Therefore female Transformers exist based solely on human preference.

by **Zombie Starscream** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:41 pm

My Spidey Sense tells me this thread is about to get locked soon.

I take an interesting view to this. To state the obvious: Why are there Tfs that obviously have traits that are considered "feminine" but are not female? Why do the "male" Transformers call them "she" and "her" even when there are no humans around? Why do all the "male" Tfs have codpieces that look terribly big?

If the Tfs had no genders at all, and the humans called them she and he then why don't the Tfs correct them? Especially Megatron and the other Decepticons who probably dislike organics, and I bet they wouldn't want to be referred in the sense to gender, as gender tends be important to organics for reproduction. And they would stick their noses up at that if they don't reproduce. They would be happy to correct that idea.

Besides, they are Aliens. We did not build them, an Alien robot can have differant abilities then an Earth robot can. Because its Sci-fi. In a cartoon or movie or Tv show, stuff doesn't have to behave only in the way we know it. This can go for Robots and Mechanical LifeForms.

A thought: Maybe they were built in a sense, but they were a primitive Mechanoid Lifeform on on of the planets the Quintessions lived on. Quintessions probably engineered them to be smarter then they originally were, but they had to use Vector Sigma to increase that intelligence. That might be why the Quints consider them slaves, as to the Quints, they are nothing more then a type of animal. Arena fighting would be like dog fighting. They have several ways of increasing their numbers, like factory building, Protoforms, and enabling them to sexually reproduce. It helps to increase profits if you have more then one way of creating them.

Plus the Quints could set a number of them on a world, and as they could sexually reproduce, the Quints leave them for a while as they increase their numbers, and then pick up a number of them to sell periodically. No fuss, no muss, no need to make them in a factory when nature does it for you.

-------

How do the figures for the new cartoon Transform? I imagine the figures are all curvy to look like the cartoon, maybe they could use this in the same way to accomidate the curves in femme Tfs during transformation. That way they could still have the broad rounded hips and robo-boobs.

by **Nemesis Cyberplex** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:13 pm

Zombie Starscream wrote:My Spidey Sense tells me this thread is about to get locked soon.

I take an interesting view to this. To state the obvious: Why are there Tfs that obviously have traits that are considered "feminine" but are not female? Why do the "male" Transformers call them "she" and "her" even when there are no humans around? Why do all the "male" Tfs have codpieces that look terribly big?

If the Tfs had no genders at all, and the humans called them she and he then why don't the Tfs correct them? Especially Megatron and the other Decepticons who probably dislike organics, and I bet they wouldn't want to be referred in the sense to gender, as gender tends be important to organics for reproduction. And they would stick their noses up at that if they don't reproduce. They would be happy to correct that idea.

Not trying to say you're wrong or correct you, but think about this. One thing Transformers mythos does point out is that even the newer TFs that weren't built during any series, such as Hot Rod, are ancient beings. If you look back on G1, they stayed crashed on earth for a million years....who knows how long they were around before that...& they also had space travel. If you look at how the transformers interacted with the humans, & how they each seemed to meld their cultures together...it is possible that they did the same on other planets...possibly some that would have genders similar to earth...some of which might have languages that assign gender to the genderless similar to how French does. They might have caught on & accepted it, & catogorized themselves based on body designs & personalities. But I am not saying this as TF fact...just a possibility. Hell, if Jetfire in Cybertron can pick up an australian accent from being on R & R on a different planet...lord knows what else TFs could have picked up & incorporated into their own cultures.

Besides, they are Aliens. We did not build them, an Alien robot can have differant abilities then an Earth robot can. Because its Sci-fi. In a cartoon or movie or Tv show, stuff doesn't have to behave only in the way we know it. This can go for Robots and Mechanical LifeForms.

very true....but this also means that if robots don't have to behave as earth robots do, or even as humans do, it is possible for them to have gender as purely a design style & personality type...without any reproductive need.

A thought: Maybe they were built in a sense, but they were a primitive Mechanoid Lifeform on on of the planets the Quintessions lived on. Quintessions probably engineered them to be smarter then they originally were, but they had to use Vector Sigma to increase that intelligence. That might be why the Quints consider them slaves, as to the Quints, they are nothing more then a type of animal. Arena fighting would be like dog fighting. They have several ways of increasing their numbers, like factory building, Protoforms, and enabling them to sexually reproduce. It helps to increase profits if you have more then one way of creating them.

Plus the Quints could set a number of them on a world, and as they could sexually reproduce, the Quints leave them for a while as they increase their numbers, and then pick up a number of them to sell periodically. No fuss, no muss, no need to make them in a factory when nature does it for you.

All I'll say on this part is they actually had something similar to what you mentioned...it was kinda a cyborg species they made called transorganics...they were basically like giant worms & other weird alien creatures with integrated robotics added on. the quints supposedly buried them on one of the lowest levels of Cybertron in some caverns because they weren't controllable.

Edit: a few transorganics from the episode "dweller in the deapths"

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:15 pm

Why the hell would Transformers breed when they can build more anyway? That's like shooting at something with a pistol when you've got a bazooka that can do the job in like, a hundredth of the time.

by **Tramp** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:50 pm

wrong. Female Cyberttronians existed long before the Transformers came to Earth!. It had nothuing to do with "human preference". Elita -1 never went to Earth. Nor dis Moonracer, nor Chromia, nor Firestar. How could their being female have the slightest bit to do with human preference?

Secondly, if you read that carefully, it is referring to the ideas of requiring lipids and protiens and other such "limiting" factors which may not be applicable, not the seven core factors. It is those that the site akes sense for life on Earth. It says no such thing about the seven key factors. It even specifies that things like viruses and prions, which look like life at first glance, are not because they don't meet the seven basic criteria. They mimmickp life, but they aren't life. Without metabolism, an organism canot survive. Without reproduction, a species cannot survive. without each of these seven basic life functions, a "life form" cannot survive either as an individual or as a species. It would die out. However, the one thing that all science agrees upon is the capacity to reproduce. If you read any list for what classifies life, it includes the ability to reproduce. That article even states that some things which at first glance looked like life, [b]was not life. The Smithsonian Institute's bare minimum list coinsists of three specific factors absolutely essential to life:

How do we define “life”? What separates the living organisms from the non-living? Biologists usually define something as living if it can (1) reproduce, (2) respond to external stimuli through internal mechanisms, and (3) metabolize energy from the environment for its own uses. All three qualities are required to be considered alive.

(http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_life2.html
This is the most basic and elementary criteria, though obviously not the completel list.

You should also look here:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobio_life_030415.html
here is but one very important passage:

However, some initial agreement is possible. Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis, or an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction like motion, recoil and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals and shedding of waste.

To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria. For example, a crystal can grow, reach equilibrium and even move in response to stimuli, but is considered to lack what would commonly be thought of as a biological nervous system to guide it.

Then there is this link: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/life/life.html&edu=high which states this:

What is life? If this strikes you as an odd question, consider it for a moment. (It's almost as hard as describing the origin of life). Of course we all have an intuitive sense of what life is, but how would you actually define it? Given the incredible diversity of living things, from the mold on your old tuna sandwich to monkeys in the rainforest, how could one word encompass all that "life" represents?

Even biologists have a difficult time defining the very concept they study. However, given our knowledge of the life forms present on Earth, it is recognized that all living things do share a set of characteristics in common:

1) Living things take in and use energy
2) Living things eliminate waste products
3) Living things grow and develop
4) Living things respond to their environment
5) Living things reproduce
6) Living things show variation based on heredity
7) Over time, living things evolve (change slowly) in response to their environment.

Therefore, in order for something to be considered to be "alive" or to "have life" as we know it, it must possess these characteristics.

You will notice from these particular reliable sources that the one factor [b]all[b/]agree on is the need for life to be self-propagating. It is absolutely essential to life. Fi you look at any list and any discussion, the one thing that they all say is that life needs to propegate.

by **Tramp** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:03 am

Nemesis Cyberplex wrote:
Zombie Starscream wrote:My Spidey Sense tells me this thread is about to get locked soon.

I take an interesting view to this. To state the obvious: Why are there Tfs that obviously have traits that are considered "feminine" but are not female? Why do the "male" Transformers call them "she" and "her" even when there are no humans around? Why do all the "male" Tfs have codpieces that look terribly big?

If the Tfs had no genders at all, and the humans called them she and he then why don't the Tfs correct them? Especially Megatron and the other Decepticons who probably dislike organics, and I bet they wouldn't want to be referred in the sense to gender, as gender tends be important to organics for reproduction. And they would stick their noses up at that if they don't reproduce. They would be happy to correct that idea.

Not trying to say you're wrong or correct you, but think about this. One thing Transformers mythos does point out is that even the newer TFs that weren't built during any series, such as Hot Rod, are ancient beings. If you look back on G1, they stayed crashed on earth for a million years....who knows how long they were around before that...& they also had space travel. If you look at how the transformers interacted with the humans, & how they each seemed to meld their cultures together...it is possible that they did the same on other planets...possibly some that would have genders similar to earth...some of which might have languages that assign gender to the genderless similar to how French does. They might have caught on & accepted it, & catogorized themselves based on body designs & personalities. But I am not saying this as TF fact...just a possibility. Hell, if Jetfire in Cybertron can pick up an australian accent from being on R & R on a different planet...lord knows what else TFs could have picked up & incorporated into their own cultures.

Besides, they are Aliens. We did not build them, an Alien robot can have differant abilities then an Earth robot can. Because its Sci-fi. In a cartoon or movie or Tv show, stuff doesn't have to behave only in the way we know it. This can go for Robots and Mechanical LifeForms.
very true....but this also means that if robots don't have to behave as earth robots do, or even as humans do, it is possible for them to have gender as purely a design style & personality type...without any reproductive need.

No, because there would be no need for it. What purpose would it serve to do so? Genders serve a specific function, the gender identity a direct result of the development of physical genders. there would be no need for genders without reproduction because it is through genders that sexually reproducing life begets offspring, The combination of the male and female gametes. Only sexually reproducing life forms have genders.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:05 am

^Pull your head out of your arse. We've proven to you time and again in this topic they don't. Notice that you're the only one who seems to keep bringing these things up, tramp? Here's an idea: Maybe the creators didn't realize people would lose sleep over the fact that they thought transformers could have sex. Therefore, they didn't give a crap! Genders DON'T have to be there for sex, as much as you wish it were.

by **Tramp** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:07 am

Damolisher wrote:^Pull your head out of your arse. We've proven to you time and again in this topic they don't.

No, Damolisher, you haven't.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:11 am

Yes we have. Starting with the word Robots.

by **Tramp** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:23 am

Damolisher wrote:Yes we have. Starting with the word Robots.

Wrong Damolisher. Their being robotic does not mean they aren't life forms. It does not mean that they cannot reproduce through sexual means. That is a fallacy on your part. You think that only organic life should be able to procreate, and that is not true. Any kind of life can procreate through either sexual or asexual means. It doens't matter what that life is made from. Simple basic life like single-celled organisms, or nanites (the robotic equivalent to cells) are asexual. More complex life forms, require sexual reproduction to ensure greater genetic diversity. It has nothing to do with them being organic or robotic. The very fact that your entire argument is based upon them being robotic shows that you are just being stubborn and incapable of seeing other possibilities. You have a very narrow view of what life is.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:29 am

OK, lay off the weed. Robots don't have sex. Here are the references to robots:

God Gambit: (Jazz) "We're not Gods, just fancy machines."
MTMTE part 2: (Spike) "Optimus Prime cares a lot about his fellow ROBOTS."
Tagline for the series: "ROBOTS in Disguise."
FFOD 5: Quintesson machine freezes all ROBOTIC LIFEFORMS in the universe, which the Transformers were. Not ORGANIC lifeforms, robotic lifeforms.
Rebirth: Plasma Energy is fatal to MACHINES, but NOT TO ORGANIC CREATURES.

Simon Furman doesn't believe Robots can breed, and he's the MAIN TRANSFORMERS WRITER. WHAT HE SAYS GOES. And don't thumb your ****ing manga at me, either. Starscream's a chick in France, but I don't see you whining about Starscream being a girl. And where do you see proof they breed? YOU NEVER DO! YOU SEE THEM BEING BUILT! OPEN YOUR EYES, DINGUS! YOUR ARGUMENT HAS ZERO MERIT! You can tell me all lifeforms require whatever all you want, it has absolutely nothing to do with a cartoon.

by **Tramp** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:55 am

Damolisher wrote:OK, lay off the weed. Robots don't have sex. Here are the references to robots:

God Gambit: (Jazz) "We're not Gods, just fancy machines."
MTMTE part 2: (Spike) "Optimus Prime cares a lot about his fellow ROBOTS."
Tagline for the series: "ROBOTS in Disguise."
FFOD 5: Quintesson machine freezes all ROBOTIC LIFEFORMS in the universe, which the Transformers were. Not ORGANIC lifeforms, robotic lifeforms.
Rebirth: Plasma Energy is fatal to MACHINES, but NOT TO ORGANIC CREATURES.

Simon Furman doesn't believe Robots can breed, and he's the MAIN TRANSFORMERS WRITER. WHAT HE SAYS GOES. And don't thumb your ****ing manga at me, either. Starscream's a chick in France, but I don't see you whining about Starscream being a girl. And where do you see proof they breed? YOU NEVER DO! YOU SEE THEM BEING BUILT! OPEN YOUR EYES, DINGUS! YOUR ARGUMENT HAS ZERO MERIT! You can tell me all lifeforms require whatever all you want, it has absolutely nothing to do with a cartoon.

Damolisher. no one is denying that they are robots. What you are denying is their status as life. Yes, a robotic life form can have sexual reproduction. That does not require a life form to be organic.
Second, no, what Simon Furman says does not go. He is but one writer in a slew of writers in TF history, and the majority of writers and continuities have genders among Transformers. They are sexual beings. Simon Furman does not use female Transformers at all in his stories. Does that mean females do not exist in TF canon? Absolutely not. They do exist in TF canon, just not in Simon Furman's stories. In every other continuity genders exist. There are males and there are females. there are romances and marriages, there are families. what else do you need? Actually seeing them engaged in the act?

Jazz' statement does not mean that they are not living beings.He is saying that they are not omnimpotent.

The FFoD reference. Look at exactly what it says, robotic life forms. Look at the statement from Prime in the movie, which is also relevant here, "We are autonomous robtic organisms from the planet Cybertron." Robotic organisms. Robotic life forms. Yes, they are robots. but they are more than that. They are living robots. Mechanical life forms and that is what you are discounting. The important part is not them being robotic. It is them being alive. There being true, them being life forms, which separates them from standard robots like we have on Earth.

No one is denying that many Cybertronians are created from protoforms built in factories. However, you deny a very clear statement that constructing protoforms in factories is not the only possible method of creating new transformers. There are other methods. The cumulative evidence strongly supports that sexual reproduction is one of those other methods.

And where do I see proof that they breed? From the manga, from the original movie with the Lithonians, through characters such as Wheelie who are children, not adults. From characters like Lio Jr, Form the relationships of Prime and Elita-1 and the others in the original cartoon. That is proof enough. I don't need to see them having intercourse or giving birth. They wouldn't be appropriate for a kids series to show. I can look at the other evidence to draw that conclusion.
And, as far as France having Starscream female, do youm have some proof of this? I've never even heard that one before.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:27 am

Machines DO NOT BREED. If they were, as Shadowman said, with your "Definitions of life", my computer could be having sex with a laptop, but it's not. I've never heard of a pregnant computer. A lifeform is something that isn't DEAD. I.e. something that can live. I heard on here a while ago Starscream is a female in France, and it's talked about on occasion on the Transformers General discussion board. AND STOP TELLING ME THEY BREED! THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE BUILT! THEY DO NOT BREED! THEY ARE MADE OF METAL, CONTAIN CIRCUITS, AND NOTHING INDICATES OTHERWISE FROM INTERNAL DIAGRAMS! Show me a diagram which shows genitalia on a Transformer, or an ability to reproduce through means other than BUILDING AND PROGRAMMING, and it'll prove the validity of your argument. What's annoying me right now is you use throwaway crap from Japan, the same brilliant people who brought us schoolgirls being violated by tentacled beasts, and from series which hold no relevance over here. And you don't need to see it, look at the evidence, feh, you're full of crap. THAT MOVIE DOES NOT ADD UP TO ANYTHING. ONE THROWAWAY LINE FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER, EVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH TRANSFORMERS BEFORE DOESN'T ALTER HISTORY ONE BIT! They are not sexually active machines, and even if they could breed, it would've been mentioned by now explicitly BY A CHARACTER.

Really, machines who can breed. Get real. It's just a cartoon, why would they include this crap when it's aimed at children? People such as yourself who have to have a solution to every freakin' unsolved mystery, so you go and have to rob the cartoon of its innocence in the first place are ruining Transfandom.

by **Tramp** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:44 am

Damolisher wrote:Machines DO NOT BREED. If they were, as Shadowman said, with your "Definitions of life", my computer could be having sex with a laptop, but it's not. I've never heard of a pregnant computer. A lifeform is something that isn't DEAD. I.e. something that can live. I heard on here a while ago Starscream is a female in France, and it's talked about on occasion on the Transformers General discussion board. AND STOP TELLING ME THEY BREED! THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE BUILT! THEY DO NOT BREED! THEY ARE MADE OF METAL, CONTAIN CIRCUITS, AND NOTHING INDICATES OTHERWISE FROM INTERNAL DIAGRAMS! Show me a diagram which shows genitalia on a Transformer, or an ability to reproduce through means other than BUILDING AND PROGRAMMING, and it'll prove the validity of your argument. What's annoying me right now is you use throwaway crap from Japan, the same brilliant people who brought us schoolgirls being violated by tentacled beasts, and from series which hold no relevance over here.

Really, machines who can breed. Get real. It's just a cartoon, why would they include this crap when it's aimed at children? People such as yourself who have to have a solution to every freakin' unsolved mystery, so you go and have to rob the cartoon of its innocence in the first place are ruining Transfandom.

Damolisher, Earth machines cannot breed. Who are we to say that extraterrestrial robotic life forms can't. Secondly, I have shown that building them is not the only method of creating new Cybertronians, TF More than Meets the Eye #8 specifically states as much. Do you want me to scan the page? I will if I have to. The very last sentence in the section on protoforms reads:

It is believed that Cybertronians have other untapped potential for creating new life, but it is unclear what missing components are necessary to complete this system—(TransFormers More than Meets the Eye #8 page 15)

It specifically states that the use of protoforms built in a factory, and imbued with a spark is not the only method of crating new transformer life. There are other methods available. What are the missing components? Most likely females. Arcee is one of the few known. A few others are shown in War Within. What happened to them all? The regular series seemed to suggest the Quintessans took them all. That is your missing component.

And, for the record, the very actiuons and behaviors of the various Transformers couples says yes, they are sexual beings. We don't need to have them say it word for word.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:02 am

NO THEY AREN'T!!!!!!!!!!!! Those couple show no signs of loving OUTSIDE of friendships APART from PRIME AND ELITA-1! And that's simply because it's a plot point for the episode! What would the other reasons be? "Yeah, I saved Elita-1 cos she owes me 5 bucks." Real Prime like.

And they would need to explain it word-for-word, because people like ME, i.e. the people who AREN'T sexually obsessed with Transformers don't see any sexual connection with Transformers. There are no sexual-related encounters in ANY Transformers medium, that's just your cute little imagination at work, as it has been this whole topic. And I bet your next post will be telling me that I don't know what I'm on about, you do, because your little hentai manga said so, and your non-canon Dreamwave comics made a statement the writers didn't think would cause ANY debate. I've spoken to my friends, including one who's doing a biology major at University, and he claims your claims are frivolous AT BEST, because the point in robots breeding would be zero. Your theories are absolute crap, and your argument revolves around two very loose points which make no sense to any mentally sane person.

And make your bloody mind up. First you say they're sexual beings, and go on about females, and then you say the Quintessons took them all. They're talking about the Creation Matrix, you goomba, not sexual organs. What sick freak puts sexual organs on robots? It's be pretty painful for a character, say, ENERGON WING SABER, who splits in half, to have reproductive organs. You're grasping at straws, and it's pretty pathetic. And you don't need to start all your posts of with my name. it's pretty damn obvious who you're talking to when you use the quote function. Personally, I can't believe this stupid argument has gone this long, and I REALLY think it's tragic that there are people out there who worship a cartoon so much that they must have scientific explanations for everything.

Argue this: You keep blabbering on about impossibilities and possibilities, yet the show is about Alien robots from another planet, who manage to get to and from Earth REALLY bloody quickly. Yeah, THAT'S scientifically possible. Hack.

by **Tramp** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:26 am

Damolisher wrote:NO THEY AREN'T!!!!!!!!!!!! Those couple show no signs of loving OUTSIDE of friendships APART from PRIME AND ELITA-1! And that's simply because it's a plot point for the episode! What would the other reasons be? "Yeah, I saved Elita-1 cos she owes me 5 bucks." Real Prime like.

And they would need to explain it word-for-word, because people like ME, i.e. the people who AREN'T sexually obsessed with Transformers don't see any sexual connection with Transformers. There are no sexual-related encounters in ANY Transformers medium, that's just your cute little imagination at work, as it has been this whole topic. And I bet your next post will be telling me that I don't know what I'm on about, you do, because your little hentai manga said so, and your non-canon Dreamwave comics made a statement the writers didn't think would cause ANY debate. I've spoken to my friends, including one who's doing a biology major at University, and he claims your claims are frivolous AT BEST, because the point in robots breeding would be zero. Your theories are absolute crap, and your argument revolves around two very loose points which make no sense to any mentally sane person.

Wrong. Not apart from Prime and Elita-1. Ironhide and Chromia specifically show romantic affection as they say good-bye, the others are also specfically considered boy-friend and girlfirend in canon. Is Wreckgar being married just Friendship? No. It is romance and courtship. That is love. The tangled webe between Hot Rod, Arcee and Springer is a love triangle. This is clearly stated in Arcee's bio, and also actually demonstrated in War and Peace as well as isssue #9 of the regular series, and the orignal 86 movie, which is confirmed by Susam Blu herself in the interviews on the DVD set. There was romantic interest and flirting going on between Hot Rod and Arcee in the movi,a s well romatic sparks between Springer and Arcee in the third season, aslo according to Sue Blu. In Beast Wars Black Arachnia is willing to defect because of her love for Silverbolt. By Beast Machines[/i] she [b]has defected, and one of her primary motivations is locating her lost love, Silverbolt, who had been turned into Jetstorm, and turning him back into her beloved. In Cybertron, you can't tel me that Thunderblast didn't have the "hots" for Megatron. She was constantly coming on to him. What about the flirting between Override and Hotshot? are you telling me that there was no sexual tension between them? So, yes, they do show romantic love, not just friendship.

Romance and sexual tension between male and female TransFormers has been rife throughout the entire history of TF lore. It is only in Simon Furman's work that it is absent.

News Credits: 33 · by **Glyph** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:36 am

Wow, this topic really goes downhill fast.

Damolisher - really, please stop shouting and swearing. It's not pleasant to read and it only undermines your arguments, because people pay much less attention to what you're saying if they have to get through all the ranting to find the point.

Tramp - two things are becoming increasingly clear from your posts. Firstly, you cherry-pick convenient bits from many different continuities, ignoring the inconvenient counter-evidence, and try to claim that the disjoint parts constitute a whole which All Rational People[TM] must accept. Secondly, you're arguing from your own inference from the given material rather than what is explicitly stated, mostly stemming from a dogged refusal to relax modern scientific criteria when dealing with a 20-year-old kids' franchise. It's fiction, and fiction - science fiction in particular - frequently works by deliberately setting aside or changing some part of our current understanding and positing a 'What if?' scenario. The scenario in this case is: What if there were a race of alien robots who defied our criteria for 'life'?

Let's take a canon example, from the Marvel comics again. Hi-Q, a Nebulan scientist, refuses to accept that the Transformers are living machines: he looks at them and their capabilities, and finds that they do not match his criteria for 'life'. He declares that they are only robots, ultimately controlled by their programming; no more than complex machines which give the illusion of life. In the course of the story, Hi-Q becomes convinced of the Transformers' existence as actual life forms - not by demonstrating that they meet the established scientific criteria for life that you insist on so strongly, since they had already failed that test, but by being convinced of their sentience and capacity for original, unprogrammed thought. It's in the same vein as the many stories which explicitly state that a Transformer is little more than a drone until given 'life' from an external source - be that Vector Sigma (in the cartoon), the Creation Matrix (in the comics) or a spark (in the Beast saga and retroactively in modern G1).

That is the criterion for life in TF fiction, and it doesn't matter what the modern scientific understanding is. It's children's fiction, and that is the situation it presents. Insisting that everything in it must conform rigorously to current scientific thought not only misses the point of the fiction, but also robs it of much of its charm. IMO, of course.

As an aside, you are quite incorrect when you state that the absence of female* Transformers in the US comic is due to the personal choice of Simon Furman. Furman didn't write for the US comic until very late in its run; the majority of US stories prior to that were written by Bob Budiansky. Despite his personal dislike of the idea - he, like most TransFans, doesn't see a need or reason for alien robots to have biological genders - Furman's stories have used Arcee (numerous times - Furman wrote the controversial UK story which claimed that Arcee was built on Earth in response to feminist pressure, and in which it is made clear that the differences between Arcee and other Transformers are simply behavioural and cosmetic) and Airrazor, to name but two. Budiansky, for his part, was largely responsible for defining the concept of the Transformers, wrote most of the guide to the series' characters (including Arcee), and penned the comic story referred to in a previous post in which Cloudburst states that Transformers do not mate.

*I use 'female' here in the sense that I believe it is used in general language, not in its strict biological meaning - general language tends to refer to someone feminine as 'she', even in the edge cases where the person in question might be missing an X chromosome. Most people simply do not distinguish between 'being genetically female' and 'being feminine' in their everyday language, probably because this is rarely necessary in everyday life.