Are the Powerpuff Girls homunculi?

Are the Powerpuff Girls homunculi?

Yeah.

There's no philosopher's stone involved, so no. They're golems.

Golems only look human on the outside. Homunucli are human on the inside as well, organs and all.
Since the girls breathe, bleed, eat and sleep, they've got to be homunculi.

Why do people like to pretend ficticious creatures have a clear definition and rules instead of being made up different in every story?
There's a faggot arguing "drakes" and "wyverns" and "dragons" always have to be different things on Sup Forums.

Creatures of legend always have contradictory forms and rules, from elves to vampires to demons, to genies.

Call them whatever you like, it's a ficticious word invented to refer to something that isn't actually there.

t. golem shill

false.

I wish they'd reboot the series.

>There's no philosopher's stone involved

chemical x might be it, you don't know

I'd say yeah.

Because words have definitions, you bitch.

They are bio-androids like that one version of Frankenstein where they grew him in a vat.

Chemical X confirmed for Materia Prima

Sorry, but your wyverns argument doesn't have a leg to stand on

Homunculus Frankenstein's monster? That sounds weird.

Wouldn't they be wyrms then?

You sound very, very nice. And I mean that in the original connotation of that word.

s-shut up. it's an amputee wyvern

I don't think archaic nice applies here. I'm being curt, not coy nor finnicky.
Maybe you should open a dictionary?

Maybe you should suck my nuts

That's a queer request, user.

How nice. You tried to look it up but somehow managed to screw even that up. Here:

>Middle English nice "foolish, stupid," from early French nice (same meaning), from Latin nescius "ignorant," from nescire "not to know," from ne- "not" and scire "to know"

But that's not important. You're missing the point. The meaning of words is not set in stone from the first time they are used, you nice person, so rebuking that user with a simple statement like "words have meanings" is a very nice thing to say. Consider that definitions and language are constantly evolving over time. You can disagree with user on the specific context of where we are in that evolution, but don't make nice blanket statements like that any more.

Sooo... Yes?

He can suck you off after I'm done condescending to him.

Essentially... yeah.

Because it's fun

Well hurry up

We keep going over this, and the answer is still yes. They are cute homunculi, in the same way HIM is cute Satan.

HIM is santa claus.

do you even watch the show?

Satan* Claws* and my point stands

noun
plural noun: homunculi
a very small human or humanoid creature.
historical
a supposed microscopic but fully formed human being from which a fetus was formerly believed to develop.

go·lem
ˈɡōləm/Submit
noun
noun: golem; plural noun: golems
(in Jewish legend) a clay figure brought to life by magic.
an automaton or robot.

Neither they are actually:
girl
ɡərl/Submit
noun
plural noun: girls
1.
a female child.
synonyms: female child, daughter; More
2.
a young or relatively young woman.
synonyms: young woman, young lady, miss, mademoiselle; More

The more you know.

They can be girls and also be lifeforms artificially created through fantasy alchemy or similarly fantastic science, which is in general what people mean by homunculus these days. They're no longer mutually exclusive in pop culture.

First tiny flesh blob man, then much bigger science fiction flesh blobs, and now these ones can even fly! Utonium continues where Paracelsus left off.

Well certainly they can be many things but they are primarily girls. How they came to be as girls is secondary. I would even say there powers are secondary to being girls.

But as far as the more pop related version of homunculi or golems im not convinced. Both of those even in a modern understanding require things that wherent present at the site of their creation. I suppose if we knew more about chem X it would be easier. They are life created through alchemy, if there is a term for that I am unaware but I wouldnt call them homun or golem.

>ACKTCHUALLY I meant the MIDDLE-ENGLISH version
You're not speaking French or Middle English. To split hairs and aim for mid-eng instead of either the modern origin or the actual Latin (at which point you're not saying "nice" anymore) is silly if you aren't constructing your sentences als ywere. The modern English "nice" started closer to coy.

Regardless, you're a condescending little shit. Everyone knows words evolve. That's necessary to the very point I made. It doesn't matter that the origins of these fictional terms could at times be contradictory: they evolved into these meanings. You can misuse the word if you wish and the definition may change even more in the future, but crying about people having a strict definition for a fictional concept is just silly. They are defined because of the cultural consensus that evolved over time.

They're Powerpuff GIrls and you niggers are reading too much into the plot

A flesh-based automaton is an accurate description to be fair.

noun, plural automatons, automata [aw-tom-uh-tuh] (Show IPA)
1.
a mechanical figure or contrivance constructed to act as if by its own motive power; robot.
2.
a person or animal that acts in a monotonous, routine manner, without active intelligence.
3.
something capable of acting automatically or without an external motive force.

Even removing or replacing mechanical with flesh, automaton implies a lack of sentience generally. The girls are clearly sentient and have there own goals/ambitions.

Although I suppose you could argue they arent sentient and only work per the professors orders. Perhaps when he made them and found out he made flesh puppets he ordered them to act like sentient human girls? And convinced himself he was raising real children?

There daughters of Aku.

The first and third definition implicitly contradict themselves, partially because we've had fiction tackilng automata with free will for...shit, a century?

Unless otherwise specified, I just default to homunculus when it comes to purely biological independent constructs. Especially those mixed in a big frickin' science cauldron. I go with Bio-Androids if there's a significant machine element involved in manufacture, and Golems if it's normally inanimate material that is animated and controlled by obvious generic magic spells, like runes and sigils 'n shit.

But that's just my personal defaults if the author doesn't define his own terms.

Wait a damn minute, are you or ? If you're the latter poster, I was agreeing with you the whole time you dummy.

You must be fun at parties.

On that note, I'm amused by the notion of future sentient machines finding the various terms we've used to describe them offensive. Such as artificial intelligence or robot. Someday our descendants will have to be PC and use "Synthetic-American" or whatever, or risk being hyper-doxxed by the Neo Twitter machine overmind.

cant be helped really, words mean more then they mean, more often then not.
fair enough, at this point its arguing preference though.

I figured we were always arguing preference. Better than splitting hairs over make believe and purist notions. Harmony Bunny is the cutest Powerpuff.

>arguing preference
>states literal fact
user cmon now....

>not appreciating Mange's curves

Hold on now user, no one said mange isnt the curviest. Harmony is simply the cutest.

Honestly its only liberty thats kind of weak....