TF Views

I think that tied in with the "Decepticons are military hardware" idea. The Decepticons being military gear were all uniform. Heck, we even see that with the USMC. I have known many Marines over the years, and there tends to be certain physical and even mental uniformity between them.

The real reason for this, as explained to me by a Marine is that the training leads to the mental similarities, and the USMC selects for certain mental and physical traits in potential members. If you do not have a certain build and certain features, you are less likely to get in and/or be promoted.

Dom

Still don't particularly like the Decepticons-are-military-hardware idea, but I dislike the concept of the TFs being built exclusively by the Quintessons anyway.

It's mostly because it ends up pigeonholing 'all' of the Decepticons as having been exclusively designed as the Bad Guys. I like it more if the Decepticons--at least the early ones--are all former Autobots who were outfitted as soldiers towards the end of the rebellion against the Quintessons. And then they win and the Autobots treat the soldiers like crap in general, and Megs forms the Decepticons as a peaceful faction to try and get better rights for them, and the politicians don't listen, so Megs gets tired and murders them.

Why is being built as military hardware the same as being inherently evil?

And, the old Quintesson origin provides one of the better reasons for the faction aesthetics that i can recall seeing.

Dom
-urges people to read: http://www.eyrie.org/~dvandom/BW/Fanfic/Consumer

Well, it's more clearly "Hey, all the bad guys have guns--so clearly we must've been designed that way, which removes all possibility of any of us formerly being Autobots who got tired of being good guys."

Mind, think of Cybertron's Mudflap who is pretty much just that--and he's got no obvious weapons that most other Autobots wouldn't have, besides the huge deathsaw. And he's 'bright blue,' so he's clearly not designed as a Decepticon...Argh, now I'm confused.

Dominic wrote:Why is being built as military hardware the same as being inherently evil?

When a weapon is built intended not to be used, it's peacekeeping. But when built to be used, it's destructive for non-rebuilding purposes. That's evil.

Ah, but a decisively fought war, while bloodier to behold, is often preferable to a drawn-out conflict. Drawn out conflicts cost more resources, and by extension lives, than short deciisive wars.

Consider Hama in northern Syria. ~25,000 people kills in the space of a week or so. But, Syria has not had a real problem with terrorists since, in part because they dealt so forcefully with the problem to start with. Remember, not all deaths in war are strictly combat related. Lack of food and clean water leads to disease which kills people. And, lost infrastructure not only makes delivery of resources difficult, it slows progress and growth in other spheres.

In that sense, destructive weapons can be used morally.

Dom

Dominic wrote: destructive weapons can be used morally.

Very Deep.

It is more a practical consideration than any insight born of deep thought.

I based that partly on a study released about casualties in Iraq. Some of the counting methods were fundamentally dishonest, but there were some legitimate questions to consider, such as deaths caused by lack of clean water.

Dom

Dominic wrote:Ah, but a decisively fought war, while bloodier to behold, is often preferable to a drawn-out conflict. Drawn out conflicts cost more resources, and by extension lives, than short deciisive wars.

An escalation of aggression does not make the initial entries any less evil, they are they foundation of evil.

Consider Hama in northern Syria. ~25,000 people kills in the space of a week or so.

All I could think is "Larry Hama killed 25k people?" Sorry comics boy, that's what you guys have me thinking nowadays.

But, Syria has not had a real problem with terrorists since, in part because they dealt so forcefully with the problem to start with. Remember, not all deaths in war are strictly combat related. Lack of food and clean water leads to disease which kills people. And, lost infrastructure not only makes delivery of resources difficult, it slows progress and growth in other spheres.

In that sense, destructive weapons can be used morally.

Bullshit, the use of weapons on Syria's part is only retaliation for the use of weapons on the terrorist's part, which was an evil act to begin with. The greater power was used to squelch the lesser, but only through the employment of the tools of evil because that was the forceful, quickest way to deal with a problem - there's nothing morally superior about using violence to halt violence, in of itself.

This is getting off-topic and kind of too deep. Once we start talking about real-world controversial events like this, it could get kinda messy and I don't think either of us want that. Although I'd like to believe that Dom and JT can discuss this kind of thing civilly.

Anyway, my main bit is that I just don't like all Decepticons being instantly pigeonholed as being 'designed' to be war machines. It makes them hollow and boring. "I'm with the bad guys because I was built with machine guns on my arms!"