Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Starscream GaGa wrote:If Earth was destroyed and we did find a planet of sentient, smaller life-forms we totally would use them as slaves to rebuild our planet. All you have to do is look at mankind's history to know that's a fact.

No. Just straight-up no. We is not ruled by our history. Our history dictates that the best cure for a headache is a drill to the skull to let the demons out. We have, in the intervening years, discovered that that is, in fact, complete nonsense, just like how, in the intervening years, we have discovered that slavery is morally reprehensible.

I know you're probably going to pull the "But you don't know what we'd do in that kind of situation" argument. I'm not actually arguing that point. (Though I can do that simply by saying: Neither do you) I am arguing that we are not going to socially regress however many centuries between the 19th century and whenever the destruction of Earth happens.

EDIT: Moral of the movie:
Autobots = Good
Decepticons = Bad
Humans = Average

Starscream GaGa wrote:OK. Let's be friggin' honest here. In a real-life situation Optimus would have no followers. Regardless of who sparked the war, everyone would've turned coat the moment Optimus ejected the species SOURCE OF LIFE from the planet. It's like if a country's leader decided that, in order to stop an evil dictator from taking command, decided to sterilize every human being on the planet and then create a haze to destroy the environment as well.

If Earth was destroyed and we did find a planet of sentient, smaller life-forms we totally would use them as slaves to rebuild our planet. All you have to do is look at mankind's history to know that's a fact.

But, alas, Optimus does have followers in the movie, just to drive home this is a fantasy setting. It's fictional. Optimus damn well could've forgiven Megatron and it would've been just as realistic or unrealistic as every other scene in the movie.

It's more complicated than that. If Megatron had the Allspark he would have conquered the entire universe. The Allspark is too dangerous to let Megatron get a hold of that's why Optimus launched it into space and later decided to destroy it. He doesn't want other planets to suffer for their war. It was a tough decision to make I'm sure, but I think he made the best choice.

Evil_the_Nub wrote: It's more complicated than that. If Megatron had the Allspark he would have conquered the entire universe. The Allspark is too dangerous to let Megatron get a hold of that's why Optimus launched it into space and later decided to destroy it. He doesn't want other planets to suffer for their war. It was a tough decision to make I'm sure, but I think he made the best choice.

And this is the sign of a great leader. You make the tough decisions that may not nessasarly make you popular, but is for the good of everyone.

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote: It's more complicated than that. If Megatron had the Allspark he would have conquered the entire universe. The Allspark is too dangerous to let Megatron get a hold of that's why Optimus launched it into space and later decided to destroy it. He doesn't want other planets to suffer for their war. It was a tough decision to make I'm sure, but I think he made the best choice.

And this is the sign of a great leader. You make the tough decisions that may not nessasarly make you popular, but is for the good of everyone.

Yeah, sometimes there is no right choice, and both of them end with everyone getting royally screwed. Optimus chose the path where the rest of the Universe didn't end up being subjugated by an insane robot.

Shadowman wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote: It's more complicated than that. If Megatron had the Allspark he would have conquered the entire universe. The Allspark is too dangerous to let Megatron get a hold of that's why Optimus launched it into space and later decided to destroy it. He doesn't want other planets to suffer for their war. It was a tough decision to make I'm sure, but I think he made the best choice.

And this is the sign of a great leader. You make the tough decisions that may not nessasarly make you popular, but is for the good of everyone.

Yeah, sometimes there is no right choice, and both of them end with everyone getting royally screwed. Optimus chose the path where the rest of the Universe didn't end up being subjugated by an insane robot.

Well said!

And I do think this is the type of person (or bot) Optimus Prime is. He really never did care about himself. I mean, he wanted to destroy the Allspark by means of himself, which guaranteed his death and probably no way to get him back (unless the Matrix could revive him). He also blamed himself for events that weren't necessarily his fault. He couldn't predict that reviving his old friend and mentor would instead revive a deceitful monster, but he felt failure from it. He carried burdens that weren't necessarily his to carry.

Shadowman wrote:Yeah, sometimes there is no right choice, and both of them end with everyone getting royally screwed. Optimus chose the path where the rest of the Universe didn't end up being subjugated by an insane robot.

It doesn't really matter if it was the right choice or not, what I'm saying is I have a hard time believing he'd be very popular with his troops after it happened.

5150 Cruiser wrote: I'm asking you StarScream GaGa. IN a real life situation, do you feel a person that has done everything megatron has done is worth trusting?

Probably not, but then I'm not the leader of an army. I would, at least, hold him to trial rather than tearing his face off.

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Yeah, sometimes there is no right choice, and both of them end with everyone getting royally screwed. Optimus chose the path where the rest of the Universe didn't end up being subjugated by an insane robot.

It doesn't really matter if it was the right choice or not, what I'm saying is I have a hard time believing he'd be very popular with his troops after it happened.

They were all pretty much done for if the war continued as it had been. I guess they all agreed the best way to go out is denying Megatron what he really wanted.

Starscream GaGa wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote: I'm asking you StarScream GaGa. IN a real life situation, do you feel a person that has done everything megatron has done is worth trusting?

Probably not, but then I'm not the leader of an army. I would, at least, hold him to trial rather than tearing his face off.

I pointed out the exact same thing in a discussion about Zeta Prime vs. Megatron in War for Cybertron; only the worst commanders would attempt to arrest the leader of an invading army, mid-battle, while he is actively trying to kill you. You kill that son of a bitch SEAL Team 6 style.

Shadowman wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Yeah, sometimes there is no right choice, and both of them end with everyone getting royally screwed. Optimus chose the path where the rest of the Universe didn't end up being subjugated by an insane robot.

It doesn't really matter if it was the right choice or not, what I'm saying is I have a hard time believing he'd be very popular with his troops after it happened.

They were all pretty much done for if the war continued as it had been. I guess they all agreed the best way to go out is denying Megatron what he really wanted.

Starscream GaGa wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote: I'm asking you StarScream GaGa. IN a real life situation, do you feel a person that has done everything megatron has done is worth trusting?

Probably not, but then I'm not the leader of an army. I would, at least, hold him to trial rather than tearing his face off.

I pointed out the exact same thing in a discussion about Zeta Prime vs. Megatron in War for Cybertron; only the worst commanders would attempt to arrest the leader of an invading army, mid-battle, while he is actively trying to kill you. You kill that son of a bitch SEAL Team 6 style.

Bull. Having DOTM end in robo-court would have been awesome.

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Yeah, sometimes there is no right choice, and both of them end with everyone getting royally screwed. Optimus chose the path where the rest of the Universe didn't end up being subjugated by an insane robot.

It doesn't really matter if it was the right choice or not, what I'm saying is I have a hard time believing he'd be very popular with his troops after it happened.

5150 Cruiser wrote: I'm asking you StarScream GaGa. IN a real life situation, do you feel a person that has done everything megatron has done is worth trusting?

Probably not, but then I'm not the leader of an army. I would, at least, hold him to trial rather than tearing his face off.

My response to the first point would be that we hear several times in the first movie that the autobots were once like us but are now more advanced and intelligent species. Perhaps a more advanced and intelligent species would see Optimus's comrades understanding/accepting/supporting his decision to eject the cube into space, even though it sucks. It seems to me that a common theme (at least in sci-fi) is that species that become more intelligent and logical also become more willing to self-sacrifice. "The needs of the many...".

To the second point I would just say this...I'm in the Army. I'm also an Officer (aka leader). I'm also not a "yeah let's go kill everything that moves!" kind of person. But if you are in a firefight, battle, etc, and one of the bad guys is within your sight, let alone an arms reach away, you kill them. You don't think twice about it. If you think twice, you are dead by the "twice". Leaders do hold up to a certain level of scrutiny, but I can tell you without a doubt that if the "megatron/optimus/sentinel" battle happened between three humans during an armed conflict, there is no question that Optimus's actions would hold up. There might be a few people who would want to conduct an investigation, as usually occurs when a figurehead is killed, but given the circumstances and the fact that he has proper justification for his actions, there wouldn't be any issue.

I walked out of the theater actually impressed with the decision for that part of the movie to happen as it did, and so did my girlfriend (who by the way isn't a big fan of the military and hates all kinds of war). It seemed like they took the morals of the G1 series from 25 years ago and just evolved them a little but to provide a more adult form of moral justice.

Shadowman wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:If Earth was destroyed and we did find a planet of sentient, smaller life-forms we totally would use them as slaves to rebuild our planet. All you have to do is look at mankind's history to know that's a fact.

No. Just straight-up no. We is not ruled by our history. Our history dictates that the best cure for a headache is a drill to the skull to let the demons out. We have, in the intervening years, discovered that that is, in fact, complete nonsense, just like how, in the intervening years, we have discovered that slavery is morally reprehensible.

I know you're probably going to pull the "But you don't know what we'd do in that kind of situation" argument. I'm not actually arguing that point. (Though I can do that simply by saying: Neither do you) I am arguing that we are not going to socially regress however many centuries between the 19th century and whenever the destruction of Earth happens.

EDIT: Moral of the movie:
Autobots = Good
Decepticons = Bad
Humans = Average

im sorry but this idealism is admirable but very much naive

hu7manity like all creatures is about survival and perpetuation of the species.

have we evolved that much in 100 years or so. ask the people in rwanda, srebrenica, chechnya. People killed for little or no reason.

look at india where they still have castes

Look at the war in Iraq, a war for oil, where loss of human life is seen as acceptable for the gains of prosperity

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

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

shamone wrote:im sorry but this idealism is admirable but very much naive

hu7manity like all creatures is about survival and perpetuation of the species.

have we evolved that much in 100 years or so. ask the people in rwanda, srebrenica, chechnya. People killed for little or no reason.

look at india where they still have castes

Look at the war in Iraq, a war for oil, where loss of human life is seen as acceptable for the gains of prosperity

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

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

Okay so...you'd be okay with taking another species as slaves to rebuild your house, whether they liked it or not?

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:im sorry but this idealism is admirable but very much naive

hu7manity like all creatures is about survival and perpetuation of the species.

have we evolved that much in 100 years or so. ask the people in rwanda, srebrenica, chechnya. People killed for little or no reason.

look at india where they still have castes

Look at the war in Iraq, a war for oil, where loss of human life is seen as acceptable for the gains of prosperity

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

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

Okay so...you'd be okay with taking another species as slaves to rebuild your house, whether they liked it or not?

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

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

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:im sorry but this idealism is admirable but very much naive

hu7manity like all creatures is about survival and perpetuation of the species.

have we evolved that much in 100 years or so. ask the people in rwanda, srebrenica, chechnya. People killed for little or no reason.

look at india where they still have castes

Look at the war in Iraq, a war for oil, where loss of human life is seen as acceptable for the gains of prosperity

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

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

Okay so...you'd be okay with taking another species as slaves to rebuild your house, whether they liked it or not?

are you ok with people dying in iraq for your fuel

or animals being imprisoned for your food and clothign (assuming you arent vegan of course)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5150 Cruiser wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

civil rights movement maybe

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

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

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

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

shamone wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

civil rights movement maybe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starscream GaGa wrote:

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

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

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

Actually, yes. They didn't need the humans for survival. They had a million other ways to strip mine our planet so they could rebuild theirs that didn't involve slave labor and would have been a million times more effective. Shockwave's worm-thing, for instance.

Shadowman wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

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

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

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

Actually, yes. They didn't need the humans for survival. They had a million other ways to strip mine our planet so they could rebuild theirs that didn't involve slave labor and would have been a million times more effective. Shockwave's worm-thing, for instance.

And the humans in no way would have resisted.

Starscream GaGa wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Starscream GaGa wrote:

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

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

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

Actually, yes. They didn't need the humans for survival. They had a million other ways to strip mine our planet so they could rebuild theirs that didn't involve slave labor and would have been a million times more effective. Shockwave's worm-thing, for instance.

And the humans in no way would have resisted.

They were resisting during the invasion of Chicago. Tell me how well it was going until the Autobots showed up?

Shadowman wrote:

shamone wrote:

5150 Cruiser wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

civil rights movement maybe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shadowman wrote:

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

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

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

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

Starscream GaGa wrote:

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

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

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

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

Shadowman wrote:

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

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

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

by the standards that humanity has established.

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

the decepticons have made the same decision about us