The Energon Pub

slycherrychunks wrote:

Damolisher wrote:But it's not Transformers, is it? You were quick to debunk my evidence about Red Dwarf. And besides, that's ONE occurance of Robosex.

Its called cherry-picking. Glyph already mentioned that. You take the bits of evidence that agree with your theory, and disregard the ones you dont.

As for Batteries not Included - didnt Daddy robot put the bits of metal in the top of the Mummy robot's head? If she was eating them - the director would have had to anthropomorphise the process (ie shown the chunks going into her "mouth") - because I just don't think audience's would've bought into the idea of nanites and machinery "growing" back in the mid eighties. (although I havent seen it since about then) As a ten-year-old, I certainly got the impression that the little robots were built by the mother and the whole thing was an allegory of sex.

Wow, this is still going on? I left for a few hours & already it's 2 extra pages. Wow.

You know what's one of the worst things about this argument...Tramp isn't really even coherent. Like earlier where I said TFs having gender was simply writer's preference....he had to come back saying no TFs couldn't change gender at will....which I then said it had nothing to do with what I said before, & the response was pretty much, "It dosen't matter, I'm right anyway" & even when replying, he got it screwed around to think I was talking about something else.




Yeah, at this point, he's just trying to get the last word in.

Oh, & Tramp, knock it off with the "I'm older than you so you should respect your elders" bullsh*t with Damolisher. Nobody gives a crap how old you are. The fact that your posts are more or less an elaborate way of saying, "No, it has to be because wat I say because that's what I heard" like an immature middleschool kid dosen't make you any better than him. If you are oh so desparate to gain other people's respect, then earn it, & give us some respect in return...because so far every post you've made is simply you shoving your robotic sexual fantasy down everybody else's throats & not even attempting to acknowledge anybody's else's opinions....unless they agree with yours.

Yeah, Tramp, my argument is also that your argument is the biggest load of crap in the history of history, based on the fact you treat those MTMTE books like they're the be-all and end-all of everything, and that that stupid Japanese Manga doesn't mean jack because it's not accepted as canon, and if it were, we would've heard about it, and no-one else here has heard about it. Transformers are robots, and machines CANNOT reproduce, since they are made of metal, and have circuits, rather than internal organic organs. Christ almighty, this is stuff you don't think about when you're a kid. You're simply reading far too deep into something that isn't there.

slycherrychunks wrote:

Tramp wrote:Actually, yes, there is a reson. First off, it is the face where the primary senses of sight, smell, and hearing are located.

Give the ROBOTS faces. I can understand why animals have faces.
As for your argument, an aparatus resembling a camera, a microphone and a speaker could have served these purposes. And yet, we are presented with an emotive face. Thats anthropomorphisation.

No, it isn't anthropomorphic at all. It is just as practical in a machine as in an animal. The same reason why an animal has the eyes, nose, mouth and ears in one location—the face— is the same reason why a mechanical life form or a simple robot would. The head isone of the most mobile parts of the body. It is also the part of the body where the brain is located. The closer to the brain—the control center— the faster signals can travel to and from it. Thus why the face is located on the head, and why the eyes, ears, nose and mouht are concentrated there. It is the most practical configuration. It has nothing to do with anthropomorphism.

Damolisher wrote:Yeah, Tramp, my argument is also that your argument is the biggest load of crap in the history of history, based on the fact you treat those MTMTE books like they're the be-all and end-all of everything, and that that stupid Japanese Manga doesn't mean jack because it's not accepted as canon, and if it were, we would've heard about it, and no-one else here has heard about it. Transformers are robots, and machines CANNOT reproduce, since they are made of metal, and have circuits, rather than internal organic organs. Christ almighty, this is stuff you don't think about when you're a kid. You're simply reading far too deep into something that isn't there.

And I have porven time and aghain that it isn't. Secondly, i am not relying on a single source, or even only two sources. I have been looking at all sources. This includes MtMtE, the DW comics as a whole, the G1 cartoon, the Marvel comics, Beast Wars and its sequels, the Japanese material, AEC, TransFormers" the Ultimate Guide, real science; all of it. You have been focused on a small, narrow slice of TF lore and completely ignoring everything that does not agree with you.

slycherrychunks wrote:

Tramp wrote:Actually, yes, there is a reson. First off, it is the face where the primary senses of sight, smell, and hearing are located.

Give the ROBOTS faces. I can understand why animals have faces.
As for your argument, an aparatus resembling a camera, a microphone and a speaker could have served these purposes. And yet, we are presented with an emotive face. Thats anthropomorphisation.

& yet he argues that a TFs Genitals don't necessarily have to be in the grion area....That my friends is hypocricacy.

No, that's what YOU'VE been doing. I'M Damolisher, YOU'RE Tramp. Don't confuse me with you. You're "looking at every source" because if you can't find anything to support your crappy argument anywhere, you'll crop lines and take them out of context from some other source. You've been shown why your argument is total B/s repeatedly, and you still argue. All you ARE doing is trying to get the last word in. Knock it off, the argument's getting stale. All it's doing is upping everyone's post counts.

Nemesis Cyberplex wrote:

slycherrychunks wrote:

Damolisher wrote:But it's not Transformers, is it? You were quick to debunk my evidence about Red Dwarf. And besides, that's ONE occurance of Robosex.

Its called cherry-picking. Glyph already mentioned that. You take the bits of evidence that agree with your theory, and disregard the ones you dont.

As for Batteries not Included - didnt Daddy robot put the bits of metal in the top of the Mummy robot's head? If she was eating them - the director would have had to anthropomorphise the process (ie shown the chunks going into her "mouth") - because I just don't think audience's would've bought into the idea of nanites and machinery "growing" back in the mid eighties. (although I havent seen it since about then) As a ten-year-old, I certainly got the impression that the little robots were built by the mother and the whole thing was an allegory of sex.

Wow, this is still going on? I left for a few hours & already it's 2 extra pages. Wow.

You know what's one of the worst things about this argument...Tramp isn't really even coherent. Like earlier where I said TFs having gender was simply writer's preference....he had to come back saying no TFs couldn't change gender at will....which I then said it had nothing to do with what I said before, & the response was pretty much, "It dosen't matter, I'm right anyway" & even when replying, he got it screwed around to think I was talking about something else.




Yeah, at this point, he's just trying to get the last word in.

Oh, & Tramp, knock it off with the "I'm older than you so you should respect your elders" bullsh*t with Damolisher. Nobody gives a crap how old you are. The fact that your posts are more or less an elaborate way of saying, "No, it has to be because wat I say because that's what I heard" like an immature middleschool kid dosen't make you any better than him. If you are oh so desparate to gain other people's respect, then earn it, & give us some respect in return...because so far every post you've made is simply you shoving your robotic sexual fantasy down everybody else's throats & not even attempting to acknowledge anybody's else's opinions....unless they agree with yours.

Nemesis, age has nothing to do with it. Damolisher brought it in because of a PM I sent him about his flaming and disrespect of others. Everything I have posted has ben based upon solid evidence. Whether you choose to agree with that evidence is your choice. As for the alien robots from BnI, no they do not have to anthropomorhize them for them to eat the scrap. We see it going into her "mouth" regardless of its location. That is eating. It's the consumption of food. And secondly,m yes, i have acknowledged others views, and addfressed them, as have others who agree with me.

O.K here I go:

Thae fact is, I am a neutral party. I agree with Tramp though, but I will not also hesitate to disagree with him. He does bring up a lot of interesting points.

But, and this is a big BUT, what I have noticed though, is both Demolisher's and Tramp's arguements arguements are starting to sound like they are repeating themselves.

So, I will puncture a few balloons.

Demolisher, if they are fiction, and not real, why are they not able to reproduce if they are not real robots? They are in the realm of science fiction and in science fiction, aalmost anything can happen. As they are alien robots, they don't have to be just like our robots, plus they are not real, so it doesn't matter. You use both reasons "In real life, robots don't reproduce" and then you say, "They are fictional robots." Why do they have to follow real life if they are fiction?

But Tramp, while I agree with you, I still have to remember that there might be a possibility that sexual reproduction may or may not be possible. It may be, and there does seem to be evidence to support it. But there is also evidence against it too. Or it may be right that they use both means at the same time. All we can do is theorise at this point, as we cannot disect a real Transformer nor look at his/her/it's? sexual organs. They may not be in a form that is even recognizable, so how would we know?

But, you both are each also unwilling to let go of preconcieved ideas, and a good scientist is suppost to try and look at data in as an objective manner as possible. The data is what it is, and it may lean towards one way, it may lean towards the other. Personally I see it as being in the middle. To me, they have the ability to sexually reproduce, and that helps to create a critical diversity so that their species does not have a fatal sameness of genetic material. But at the same time, they DO have the ability to create themselves at the same time, by differant means, and the eveidence exists for this too.

I am not interested in a lecture, and I hope this does not come across as one. But both the arguements for each side have holes in them. And each side is doing what the same side is accusing the other side of doing.

It's DAMOLISHER! **** me. Is it THAT hard to get right? Man, that's irritating.

Damolisher wrote:No, that's what YOU'VE been doing. I'M Damolisher, YOU'RE Tramp. Don't confuse me with you. You're "looking at every source" because if you can't find anything to support your crappy argument anywhere, you'll crop lines and take them out of context from some other source. You've been shown why your argument is total B/s repeatedly, and you still argue. All you ARE doing is trying to get the last word in. Knock it off, the argument's getting stale. All it's doing is upping everyone's post counts.

IF I couldn't find evidecne to suport it I wouldn't be using cited sources. Get real Damolisher. Everything I hav eposted is a result of research of canon surces, and not only one or two sources, but the combined collective of all of them. Research is not looking at one or two sources looking for something that says "this is how it works". Research entails looking at multiple sources, comparing them, and putting the pieces together. That is research. On top oif that, everything I have done, and posted has been fully within the context. You have takien many things out of context. Your use of the line by Jazz is a prime example. you took that quote completely out of context to try and fiut it into your narrow-minded view.

Oh, and your crappy one line from MTMTE wasn't. People like you really annoy me, because you have to have an explanation for everything. You have to have robots having sex, but oh no, it's never implied in the cartoon, in ANY series, but hey, it's in a cheap throwaway Japanese comic, and it's in a book which has been denounced by a company that doesn't exist anymore, and that's alright by you, and that's your evidence. You try to use science to indicate you think you know what you're talking about when you really don't have a clue. You continue to try and force your opinion of Robosexuals onto us, but it's obvious they're not, because in no media will you find a chart with a Transformer with sexual organs, because they don't exist. However, we see Transformers being built. Case closed, end of story. And until you can cough up a Transformer specifically saying he's been born, or a Transformers body scan with sexual organs, all you're doing is blowing smoke out your arse.

Zombie Starscream wrote:O.K here I go:

Thae fact is, I am a neutral party. I agree with Tramp though, but I will not also hesitate to disagree with him. He does bring up a lot of interesting points.

But, and this is a big BUT, what I have noticed though, is both Demolisher's and Tramp's arguements arguements are starting to sound like they are repeating themselves.

So, I will puncture a few balloons.

Demolisher, if they are fiction, and not real, why are they not able to reproduce if they are not real robots? They are in the realm of science fiction and in science fiction, aalmost anything can happen. As they are alien robots, they don't have to be just like our robots, plus they are not real, so it doesn't matter. You use both reasons "In real life, robots don't reproduce" and then you say, "They are fictional robots." Why do they have to follow real life if they are fiction?

But Tramp, while I agree with you, I still have to remember that there might be a possibility that sexual reproduction may or may not be possible. It may be, and there does seem to be evidence to support it. But there is also evidence against it too. Or it may be right that they use both means at the same time. All we can do is theorise at this point, as we cannot disect a real Transformer nor look at his/her/it's? sexual organs. They may not be in a form that is even recognizable, so how would we know?

But, you both are each also unwilling to let go of preconcieved ideas, and a good scientist is suppost to try and look at data in as an objective manner as possible. The data is what it is, and it may lean towards one way, it may lean towards the other. Personally I see it as being in the middle. To me, they have the ability to sexually reproduce, and that helps to create a critical diversity so that their species does not have a fatal sameness of genetic material. But at the same time, they DO have the ability to create themselves at the same time, by differant means, and the eveidence exists for this too.

I am not interested in a lecture, and I hope this does not come across as one. But both the arguements for each side have holes in them. And each side is doing what the same side is accusing the other side of doing.

Zombie, we have been saying the same thing. You just said it better.

To the rest of you, we all know the main form of "reproduction" TransFormers have through at least most of G1 is factory built protoforms imbued with a spark. But we also have canon statements that this is not the only possible method, that there are other potential methods. Multiple canon sources state that transFormers have genders, and engage in courtship, both of which serve the puropse of reproduction in life. So why wouldn't they be capable of sexual reproduction? There is nothing in canon that says they absolutely can't. Marvel canon simply said that they are non-gender-specific, yet that too is contradicted by nearly every other canon source which shows clear genders. The Ultimate Guide even give s areason for their society being "non-gender-specific". That being that females being lost in the distant past.

No, you don't have canon statements, SINCE NEITHER YOUR F*CKING BOOK OR MANGA ARE CANON! GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!

Damolisher wrote:Oh, and your crappy one line from MTMTE wasn't. People like you really annoy me, because you have to have an explanation for everything. You have to have robots having sex, but oh no, it's never implied in the cartoon, in ANY series, but hey, it's in a cheap throwaway Japanese comic, and it's in a book which has been denounced by a company that doesn't exist anymore, and that's alright by you, and that's your evidence. You try to use science to indicate you think you know what you're talking about when you really don't have a clue. You continue to try and force your opinion of Robosexuals onto us, but it's obvious they're not, because in no media will you find a chart with a Transformer with sexual organs, because they don't exist. However, we see Transformers being built. Case closed, end of story. And until you can cough up a Transformer specifically saying he's been born, or a Transformers body scan with sexual organs, all you're doing is blowing smoke out your arse.

Damolisher, I have not just been using one line form one source. I have used multiple sources from all over TF lore. It is not "obvious" that they are incapable of sexual reproduction. Just because they are mechanical, does not make them incapable.

Tramp wrote:Nemesis, age has nothing to do with it. Damolisher brought it in because of a PM I sent him about his flaming and disrespect of others. Everything I have posted has ben based upon solid evidence. Whether you choose to agree with that evidence is your choice. As for the alien robots from BnI, no they do not have to anthropomorhize them for them to eat the scrap. We see it going into her "mouth" regardless of its location. That is eating. It's the consumption of food. And secondly,m yes, i have acknowledged others views, and addfressed them, as have others who agree with me.

Yeah, he sent me a copy of it, & I know exactly what that PM says, & apparently age has everything to do with it, since you yourself say you were in war & watching sci-fi & Transformers before he was ever in diapers, & he should respect his elders.

Secondly, I was not referring to that craptastic 80's movie & I have never seen it..I was commenting on how you say a robot needs to have sensory features such as eyes & earson his face, & yet its genetailia can be located anywhere. That is hypocriacy.

And secondly,m yes, i have acknowledged others views, and addfressed them, as have others who agree with me.

If by addressing you mean shot their opinions down based on your robotic sexual fantasy, then yes, you have, every time. But the frequency at which you have done so shows a large lack of respect for others' opinons. & like I said, if you want respect, give it to others.

Tramp wrote:No, it isn't anthropomorphic at all. It is just as practical in a machine as in an animal. The same reason why an animal has the eyes, nose, mouth and ears in one location—the face— is the same reason why a mechanical life form or a simple robot would. The head isone of the most mobile parts of the body. It is also the part of the body where the brain is located. The closer to the brain—the control center— the faster signals can travel to and from it. Thus why the face is located on the head, and why the eyes, ears, nose and mouht are concentrated there. It is the most practical configuration. It has nothing to do with anthropomorphism.

Yes it does. If it was a question of practicality or survivability the robots would have been designed with eyes facing in every direction. They were not designed this way, they were designed in a way to resemble a human face - thats anthropomorphisation.

As for your "closer to the brain" argument - the *BnI robots were just one big floating module anyway - so it doesnt apply, they practically were one big flying brain. Their features would be close to the brain no matter how they were configured.

The thing you dont understand - and the same goes for Transformers - is that they are not products of evolution, they are fictional characters designed by artists and toy makers. Imaginary. Make believe. Only in serious "hardcore" science fiction would a writer attempt to conceive a creature that is scientifically and biologically "believable" and holds up to some level of scientific analysis on the part of the reader. *BnI and Transformers is not "hardcore" science fiction. They're for kids. They don't have a plausible biology and the hints that we have been in fiction must be taken with a pinch of salt as they are essentially afterthoughts to the toyline.

Nothing points to the possibility of sexual reproduction in transformers fiction other than your join-the-dots trail of implied facts and half-truths. For your theory to hold any weight, there would need to be far less doubts surrounding the facts that you have presented. I think we've pretty much debunked everything you've brought to the table though though.

*Oh and I hope you don't mind, I've sig'd part of your argument asit was made of lol.

Pretty impressive that this has almost reached 30 pages. If you haven't agreed to disagree before it hits 30 we should give out an award or something.

Seibertron.com's 2007 Award for Gratuitous Whining

And the prize of having something shoved into the winner's butt. :p

Nemesis Cyberplex wrote:If by addressing you mean shot their opinions down based on your robotic sexual fantasy, then yes, you have, every time. But the frequency at which you have done so shows a large lack of respect for others' opinons. & like I said, if you want respect, give it to others.

I have to agree with that. My point about laserbeaks wouldnt have actually swung the argument either way, yet you (Tramp) had to disagree with it, seemingly just for fun.

You might just be the most sophisticated troll the internet has ever seen.

Tramp wrote:Damolisher, I have not just been using one line form one source. I have used multiple sources from all over TF lore. It is not "obvious" that they are incapable of sexual reproduction. Just because they are mechanical, does not make them incapable.

But since there is nothing that even remotely referrs to the fact that they do either, it is not "obvious" that they can reproduce sexually. Your multiple sources refer to nothing but "other means" & "family relations" that could just as easily be for the purpose of better understanding other cultures as it could be "proof" of sexual relations among TFs. Like I said, your argument has no concrete evidence...as they do not specifically mention that they sexually reproduce nor do they show conception, birth, or growth among TFs in any way. They have shown creation, construction, protoforms, rebuilding(Pax-Prime, Ariel-Elita)....but there is simply no evidence to back up your claim.

everybody just:

slycherrychunks wrote:

Tramp wrote:No, it isn't anthropomorphic at all. It is just as practical in a machine as in an animal. The same reason why an animal has the eyes, nose, mouth and ears in one location—the face— is the same reason why a mechanical life form or a simple robot would. The head isone of the most mobile parts of the body. It is also the part of the body where the brain is located. The closer to the brain—the control center— the faster signals can travel to and from it. Thus why the face is located on the head, and why the eyes, ears, nose and mouht are concentrated there. It is the most practical configuration. It has nothing to do with anthropomorphism.

Yes it does. If it was a question of practicality or survivability the robots would have been designed with eyes facing in every direction. They were not designed this way, they were designed in a way to resemble a human face - thats anthropomorphisation.

Do animals have eyes all around their heads? No. Some have eyes on either side for better peripheral vision, orhers have them focused forward for better depth peception.

As for your "closer to the brain" argument - the *BnI robots were just one big floating module anyway - so it doesnt apply, they practically were one big flying brain. Their features would be close to the brain no matter how they were configured.

Yesm they are which is what completely destroys yuor "anthrompomoprhism" argument. Their design is closer to an octopus than a human, with a centrally located body and brain with the face concentrated in the central location, in this case, near the top. It is nothing like a Human's face though.

The thing you dont understand - and the same goes for Transformers - is that they are not products of evolution, they are fictional characters designed by artists and toy makers. Imaginary. Make believe. Only in serious "hardcore" science fiction would a writer attempt to conceive a creature that is scientifically and biologically "believable" and holds up to some level of scientific analysis on the part of the reader. *BnI and Transformers is not "hardcore" science fiction. They're for kids. They don't have a plausible biology and the hints that we have been in fiction must be taken with a pinch of salt as they are essentially afterthoughts to the toyline.

Yes, they are the products of a writer's imagination. That is not in dispute. However, from an in universe perspective, they did "evolve" They evolved from the creations of Primus, through interferance by the Quintessans, into the TransFormers of G1. Their planet evolved an ecology of animals, "plants" and other life all based on mechanics instead of organics.

Nothing points to the possibility of sexual reproduction in transformers fiction other than your join-the-dots trail of implied facts and half-truths. For your theory to hold any weight, there would need to be far less doubts surrounding the facts that you have presented. I think we've pretty much debunked everything you've brought to the table though though.

*Oh and I hope you don't mind, I've sig'd part of your argument asit was made of lol.

All research is a matter oc connecting the dots. It is a matter oc accumulating evidence from multiple sources and piecing them together. It isn't a matter of finding a single source which says "Yes, it's possible" or "no, it's not possible". No single source will give you the difinitive answer. You have to look at all of the sources and piece the evidence together from them. That is what I did. I didn't say, "Hey TransFormes can reproduce sexually let's go make up some evidecne to prove it." I went through everything I have read, seen, looked up on line from other canon sources, and realized that yes, it is possible; that it all pointed to them being capable of it. It made perfect sense.

Nemesis Cyberplex wrote:

Tramp wrote:Damolisher, I have not just been using one line form one source. I have used multiple sources from all over TF lore. It is not "obvious" that they are incapable of sexual reproduction. Just because they are mechanical, does not make them incapable.

But since there is nothing that even remotely referrs to the fact that they do either, it is not "obvious" that they can reproduce sexually. Your multiple sources refer to nothing but "other means" & "family relations" that could just as easily be for the purpose of better understanding other cultures as it could be "proof" of sexual relations among TFs. Like I said, your argument has no concrete evidence...as they do not specifically mention that they sexually reproduce nor do they show conception, birth, or growth among TFs in any way. They have shown creation, construction, protoforms, rebuilding(Pax-Prime, Ariel-Elita)....but there is simply no evidence to back up your claim.

Individually, no, they don't. collectively they do. As I said, research is not about looking for a single source with all the answers, it is about piecing together evidence from many sources. And just because they only showed one method of creation, does not limit it to only that method, especially when we have sources which state that there are other methods available. and, yesm they do show growth among transFormers, we see small children in Victory children of adult transformers. Do you honestly think that they would remain chibis forever?

lets try and agree on a few points that seem to be going round and around!

1: Transformers ARE mechanical lifeforms, they are living robotic beings. Just because they are not organic, does not mean that they are not alive!

2: Protoforms and 'building' TFs are the standard methods that species propogates itself, but there are other undisclosed methods, perhaps even sexually reproduction!

3: they are an alien lifeform, and therefore, IF they are capable of sexual reproduction, who is to say we would even recognise their sexual organs!

before anybody decides to argue these 3 points, take 5 minutes to compose yourselfs, and think carefully about why you are agruing or disagree with them!

slycherrychunks wrote:

Nemesis Cyberplex wrote:If by addressing you mean shot their opinions down based on your robotic sexual fantasy, then yes, you have, every time. But the frequency at which you have done so shows a large lack of respect for others' opinons. & like I said, if you want respect, give it to others.

I have to agree with that. My point about laserbeaks wouldnt have actually swung the argument either way, yet you (Tramp) had to disagree with it, seemingly just for fun.

You might just be the most sophisticated troll the internet has ever seen.

There is nothing "trollish" about it. Secondly, the "laserbeaks" issue, is not simply disagreeing with you for fun. No, twe do not see them reproducing. Nor do we with the Scrapmetals, but it is obvious that tyhey are not buiolt in factories. Therefore, they must be capable of autopoietic reproduction. Of this,m I belive we can agree. Why sexual reproduction is most likely comes from two main factors. First, they are highly complex robotic organisms. Secondly, particularly in the case of the Laserbeaks, they are analogous to organic organisms, all of which reproduce through sexual means. Scrapmetals are analogous to insects, which are sexually reproductive. Laserbeaks are analogous to eagles and hawks; to birds, which are also sexually reproductive. Therfore, the most likely conclusion is that Laserbeaks and Scrapmetals—particularly the Laserbeaks— ares exually reproductive. It is the combination of these factors that draws me to that conclusion.

ThunderThruster wrote:lets try and agree on a few points that seem to be going round and around!

1: Transformers ARE mechanical lifeforms, they are living robotic beings. Just because they are not organic, does not mean that they are not alive!

2: Protoforms and 'building' TFs are the standard methods that species propogates itself, but there are other undisclosed methods, perhaps even sexually reproduction!

3: they are an alien lifeform, and therefore, IF they are capable of sexual reproduction, who is to say we would even recognise their sexual organs!

before anybody decides to argue these 3 points, take 5 minutes to compose yourselfs, and think carefully about why you are agruing or disagree with them!

you'll get no argument from me.