Well thank you almighty sir for allowing me to quote your confused babbling. Now, as I promised: (pardon me for using bold...it seems to be the only way to communicate effectively) Gender: socially generated attitudes and behaviors, usually organized dichotomously as masculinity and femininity and now Sex: the biologically determined PHYSICAL distinctions between males and females (that means having a Night Viper or a Clampdown). So, you can have the sexual organs of a male, but consider yourself to be of the female gender, and engage in activities that are considered to be feminine. I'll even reference it for you, you can find it in "Women, Men, and Society" by Renzetti and Curran.

 

Oh, and sociology doesn't teach us to just be POLITICALLY CORRECT, it teaches us to respect others for their differences, whether that difference is found with the color of ones skin, their religious preferences, and their sexual preferences, and to a much broader extent what type of lifeform you are (organic, mechanic, techorganic, silicon based, WHATEVER). It would seem to me that you're a bit ethnocentric, but not in the traditional sense. Instead of comparing the reproductive practices of a two different ethnic backgrounds (i.e. Americans and Chinese), you're comparing our reproductive practices (an organic species that must procreate to survive), to that of an Extraterrestrial Species, and a fictional species at that! There is an extreme problem here, that problem being that you keep centralizing your argument based off of the seven key characteristics for an organism to be categorized as "alive" here on Earth. And as I've stated earlier in this discussion, those characteristics are subject to change as we gain more knowledge about the cosmos and other species that inhabit the vast expanses of said cosmos. Now, what we have hear is a problem that can easily occur when someone tries to go on a tirade; you've overgeneralized your argument. It is impossible for someone to say "These are the key characteristics that ever species MUST have to be considered alive." Why is this impossible? Because there are and ALWAYS will be exceptions to this.

 

Another thing that has been rubbing me raw, is that you continue to promote so called evidence from Transformers: Zone. You yourself have acknowledged that the pure evidence of reproduction does not exist because the show was meant for that of children. What does that mean? That means the appearance of children in Zone is purely CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. You can neither prove nor disprove how they came into existence. So what does that mean in the grand scheme of things? It means that while there may be a slight possibility, Transformers sexually reproducing is a mere hypothesis. So what do we do with a hypothesis? We test it. Let's ask the question: How do Transformers continuously increase their numbers? There are three possible (perhaps more) answers: Sexual Reproduction, Fission Manufactured. Now, we look for evidence of all three. Sexual Reproduction? No direct evidence. Fission? Some evidence mainly from Marvel Generation 2, and beast wars (splitting of Rampages spark). And finally, Manufactured? Evidence found in Generation 1, animated series, beast wars (dinobot 2) and maybe the early marvel comics, but I don't know for certain as I really didn't get into that aspect of Transformers. So, using the evidence we have readily available we can say with a bit more confidence that Transformers increase their population size/ranks by either fission and manufacturing more bots. Here's a possibility that I'm sure has come out somewhere in this thread, and I apologize if it has and I just missed it. Maybe family units were introduced under pressure from groups in Japan to take the humanization of Transformers a step further. By showing children that the family is one of the strongest social bonds that can ever be created, and guess what! It just doesn't exist here on Earth, but Transformers have families too! Thus showing children how important building a strong family can truly be.

 

 

Well...I feel as though I've been beating a dead horse. I know what comes next Tramp...you'll say i was wrong and probably call me a dirty hippy for using my sociological logic.

Caff06, what you described is not gender, it is gender identity which is something completely different. Masculine and feminine are gender identifiers, not genders. Gender is male or female. I have no idea where you cam eup with that definitioon of "gender" it is certainly not in any dictionary I have ever read. Someone who os physically male but thinks of himself as female has a female gender identity, not female gender. The gender is their physical, biological sex, not their identity. When I say gender, I am using the dictionary definition, not some BS from a book I have never read, nor care to.

 

Secondly, those characteristics are not as "subject to change" as you may think. What other criteria is their that is common to all life? Yes, my argument is centered on these seven criteria. that is because that criteria is the accepted scientific standard of what is means to be a life form. That standard being based on that which every form of life has in common in its entirety, and is unique in combination. Only living things have all seven of these particular criteria in common. Not all life forms, even on earth, are sentient. This is why it isn't a universaly accepted criteria. "souls" are not quantifiable, and it is believed that animals and plants don't have them, yet they are life forms too, That is why having a "soul" is not on the list of criteria. Therfore, we, cannot use them as the reasons why Transformers are life forms. The only criteria we have is the seven scientific criteria for all life of any form—metabloism, autopietic (self producing) reproduction (either sexual or asexual), organization, adaptation, homeostasis, reaction to evnvironment, growth. These are classified as the systemic criteria. They are the universal standard. We can't simply make up criteria, particularly if that criteria cannot be applied to all life. This criteria can be applied to any form of life. That is why it is used. That is why it is applicable here. It is the only criteria we have, and is universally accepted. And, no there are not exceptions to this. Viruses are not life forms. Hybrids such as mules, ligers, tigons, et.all are all the products of natural sexual reproduction.

 

As for the Transformers reproduction, and the three "possibilities", manufacturing protoforms and inmbuing them with a "spark" is not autopietic reproduction, it isn't self producing; it isn't procreation. Yes, they do use that method to create new Transformers, there is no question about that, just as we have used artificial insemination and are experimenting with cloning and genetic engineering to create new life. It still isn't true reproduction. Also, these "manufactured" transformers all start out fully "adult", not as children. The only known example of asexual reproduction we have is from the Marvel US G2 series which had no female Transformers at all in it. For such a complex life form, asexual reproduction is not really viable from a scientific perspective. Here too, the flashback examples resulted in fully grown, "adult" Cybertronians, not children. In all the other continuities we have females and males. We also do have evidence of sexual reproduction in the TF: Victory manga. Even though we don't see Deathsaurus and Liozak engaged in intercourse with their respective wives, the very fact that they are married and have [/b]fathered children[/b] with their wives is evidence of sexual reproduction. Deathsaurus and Liozak are fathers, their wives are mothers. The children are the offspring of Deathsaurus and Esmerelda, and Liozak and Lyzak. The fact that these children are each the products of two parents, is evidence of sexual reproduction. The fact that transformers engage in courtship and form pair bonds between individuals of the different sexes is evidence of sexual reproduction. Such courtship and pair bonding is unique to sexually reproducing life. Its sole purpose of courtship and pair bonding is reproduction and raising of offspring. Asexual life does not engage in courtship or form pair bonds between genders. Asexual life forms do not have genders or gender identities. They have no need for them. Therfore, yes we do have evidence of sexual reproduction, even though we never see the actual act. Is it circumstancial? Maybe, but I don't consider it so. Even if it is, it is very strong evidence. And, yes, from a story-telling perspective, I do believe the intent of the Japanese writers (as well as the US cartoon writers when they created Elita-1, Chromian, Firestar, Moonracer, and Arcee) was for us to conclude that Transformers are indeed sexual beings, and these children were the product of sexual reproduction to better "humanize" the Transformers. The whole point of having male and female Transformers is to show that they are just like us in every respect except that they are robotic life forms who can change their shape instead of organic. That is why they have two sexes, why they form romantic relationships, why they have husbands and wives and children. We are meant to conclude that Deathsaurus has fathered children with Esmerelda. We are meant to conclude that Liozak has fathered children with Lyzak. We are meant to conclude that Esperelda and Lyzak gave birth to their respective children. I am 100% certain that was the authors' intent. That is evidence of sexual reproduction in Transformers. Logically, what other conclusion could there be? Husband + Wife + offspring = sexual reproduction. It isn't that hard to conclude, and any other conclusion is really pushing it.

 

Some of you keep on pushing the point that you believe that Transformers cannot sexually reproduce; that they absolutely do not have sexual reproductive systems. The fact is you really do not know that for certain. The evidence shows that it is possible that they do have sexual reproductive systems. That they can reproduce sexually, not that they do, though the evidence from Victory is pretty conclusive that they do on occasion. there is no real logical reason to believe that they do not have this capability. Just because they are not "organic" life forms makes no difference.

Because it's not "pushing it" at all to claim that robots fuck.

THANK YOU PETE!

BTW I am 100% sure of my opinion, so you all better not try to disagree with me, or I'll be forced to restate it.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Because it's not "pushing it" at all to claim that robots Powerglide.

Texas Pete, I have already said, more than once, that intercourse as we do it is not the only method of sexual reproduction that Transformers could utilize. There are alternatives. Yes, "interfacing" (coitus) is the most likely, and is the generally assumed method, but it is not a given. All you need is some method for the male and female to combine their "genetic" code into a new life. This can be done internally, or externally, and development of the offspring could be either internal or external. Yes, the male could interface with the female to fertilize her internally, or she could deposit an egg pod which the male could fertilize afterwards. Or, he could release nanites into the air which the female then collects, similar to flowering plants. If internal fertilization is the key, then she could carry the pffspring internally, or once again, deposit an egg pod for external development.

Oh, well that makes more sense, that Transformers lay eggs.

KHHAAAANNNNNN!!!!!! :tflaugh1

 

 

is it me...or is tramp using the "because i said so" line of logic?

I see no merit in continuing this discussion so I'm gonna personally pull out (cos frankly each time I post a reply to Tramp I can feel my I.Q. dropping). This discussion has gone on for 9 pages already, Tramp has persistently refused to present a rational and logical argument despite numerous calls from several users. Could we just close this thread now? Cos I don't see how anyone is possibly benefitting from it... :lock JMHO :/

 

R.I.P. all those dead kittens.

Because it's not "pushing it" at all to claim that robots fuck.

Texas Pete, I have already said, more than once, that intercourse as we do it is not the only method of sexual reproduction that Transformers could utilize. There are alternatives. Yes, "interfacing" (coitus) is the most likely, and is the generally assumed method, but it is not a given. All you need is some method for the male and female to combine their "genetic" code into a new life. This can be done internally, or externally, and development of the offspring could be either internal or external. Yes, the male could interface with the female to fertilize her internally, or she could deposit an egg pod which the male could fertilize afterwards. Or, he could release nanites into the air which the female then collects, similar to flowering plants. If internal fertilization is the key, then she could carry the pffspring internally, or once again, deposit an egg pod for external development.

I just prefer to think of them bumping uglies. It's so much more poetic that way.

 

Look dude, all you've said is that you're totally convinced of your opinion. And that's great; good for you. But unfortunately, the strength of your convictions greatly exceeds the strength of your arguments.

 

You keep saying the same things over and over again. Let me explain something to you. When I say "X is true" and you say "no, Y is true", then I have to give you a reason why X is true; I can't just say "X is true" again and expect that to carry any weight. You aren't using logic -- but you think you are. You are so convinced of your rightness that you can't even see this.

 

So: let's see something that isn't dependent upon your opinions. Give us something to work with here. Like "Optimus Prime is red and blue." That would be an example of a statement of fact that you could build an argument on. Leave out stuff you can't prove. All of it. Because it isn't valid anyway.