Recent Comments

1. about 7 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Actually, Watterson wouldn’t have had Calvin say such nonsense if there wasn’t a significant number of people who believed it.

2. about 12 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Yes, Calvin values no-values, which is a contradiction. Common in today’s world.

3. about 12 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   It’s indeed irrational to claim that racism, communism, fascism, Nazism, etc. are equally valid notions of good because all notions of good are equally valid.

4. about 12 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Truth.

5. about 14 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “Watterson….says he did not see Hobbes as part of Calvin’s imagination….I read the quote from Watterson, ‘I suspect he is more real than any kid would make up’”

   You continue to cite that which I’ve already refuted. In saying those things, Watterson made a FALSE ASSUMPTION:

   WATTERSON: It would seem to me, though, that when you make up a friend for yourself, you would have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you. So Hobbes is more real than I suspect any kid would (You lied and claimed he said could) dream up.

   Since Calvin ENJOYED the treehouse fight with Hobbes, and since Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, Watterson disproved his assumption, and therefore the basis for what he said he didn’t “see”, as well as his “suspicion”. You’ve accepted that “Calvin need not enjoy a fight to imagine it.” That leaves you and Watterson with nothing.

   Again, you said “Watterson has explained that….Calvin sees him differently from how other characters see him.”

   Citing that is YOUR admission AND Watterson’s that the LIVING Hobbes has NO objective reality. It acknowledges that Hobbes as a living being is perceptible ONLY by Calvin, which means he does NOT fit the DEFINITION of something objectively real:

   of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

   Since by using the Watterson quote you ADMIT that the LIVING Hobbes is perceptible ONLY by Calvin and therefore has NO objective reality by the very meaning of the word objective, and since YOU SAID saying “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”,you admit that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.

   Your attempt to deny foundational logic is sad and pathetic.

6. about 15 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Calvin’s attitude is quite common in today’s world: “all notions of good and bad are equally valid. Objective reality means nothing. Diversity is more important”.

7. about 15 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “Hobbes is definitely real.”

   Yet another sad example of you abandoning / contradicting your previous stance. You spent many months saying (including only two days ago) “I have often said that I have NOT been arguing that Hobbes is real”, just as you spent months claiming that the reality of Hobbes is subjective, but abandoned that.

   The irony is that you’re always eager to fall back on Watterson as the “ultimate authority” who can’t be disputed. But in abandoning your claim that the reality of Hobbes is subjective, you DISPUTED Watterson, whom you quote as saying “Hobbes is more to do with the subjective nature of reality”. So it seems he’s no “indisputable authority” on the nature of Hobbes after all.

   You abandoned the “Hobbes’ reality is subjective” claim when it finally dawned on you that, as you said, “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”. Hence your nonsensical claim that the reality of Hobbes is “both” objective and subjective.

   “If I accept your argument that nothing can be both “objective” and “subjective” then I accept that Hobbes is ‘objective’…. However, I do NOT accept this argument.”

   Your refusal to accept it is your refusal of logic itself, ie the law of non-contradiction. I quote:

   The Law of Non-Contradiction is a foundational principle in both classical and modern logic. Simply put, this law states that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, a proposition and its denial cannot both be correct. This concept might sound abstract at first, but it’s integral to the way we think, reason, and understand the world around us.

   So you’re not interested in having integrity of thought, reason, or understanding the world. How sad. How sad that you refuse to acknowledge your admission that Hobbes is imaginary, since he doesn’t fit the meaning of objectively real, and you said “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”.

8. about 15 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I accept your new argument that Calvin need not enjoy a fight to imagine it.”

   Actually, it’s not a “new argument”. What’s new is you finally accepting it. Your acceptance of it means you can NEVER again cite Watterson’s false assumption that no kid would imagine someone who argues with him, which was the BASIS for what he said he didn’t “see”, namely, Hobbes as imaginary. That is, if you have intellectual integrity, which you’ve shown you don’t.

   “How do you explain Calvin suddenly going from being pleased with Hobbes’s drawing to arguing with him about the money and being angry at having to settle for 50% instead of 25%?”

   You can’t see the difference between being pleased with a drawing and arguing over the split of the proceeds from it? You think even family members wouldn’t do that? Seriously? Richard West explained it:

   “a lot of psychologists would say that children create imaginary friends to play out family dramas. So an argument can be just as much a part of an imaginary world as, you know, a sort of sentimental, gooey friendship can be.”

   That means Calvin plays out dramas in his mind, dramas which he sometimes enjoys and sometimes doesn’t, just as people sometimes enjoy a family drama and sometimes they don’t. It doesn’t mean the dramas aren’t in his mind. Watterson did NOT dispute West’s analysis:

   WATTERSON: Yeah, well, I would hope that the friendship between Calvin and Hobbes is so complex that it would transcend a normal fantasy. The resolution of the question of whether Hobbes is real or not doesn’t concern me or interest me

9. about 15 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I used to think that he was a doll whom Calvin imagined was alive until I noticed that he is only a doll when someone other than Calvin is with him but is shown to be alive and able to see us and speak to us when he is completely alone.”

   You’re still trying to hide from what you’re acknowledged: “We both agree that Calvin COULD be imagining Hobbes doing things when Hobbes is alone”. Your agreement to that shows that such instances are evidence of NOTHING. You’ve also reaffirmed that the living Hobbes has no objective reality, because he doesn’t fit the very meaning of something that is NOT objectively real:

   of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind**

   You reaffirmed this when you said “Watterson has explained that….Calvin sees him differently from how other characters see him”.

   And it’s more than just Watterson saying the living Hobbes is perceptible ONLY to Calvin. It’s obvious to ANYONE reading the strip. Indeed, that fact is the very foundation of the strip.

   Watterson….explained that he does NOT see Hobbes as a stuffed doll who comes to life NOR “as a product of Calvin’s imagination”.

   It’s so funny to see you cite the “authority” you disputed when you denied the subjective reality of Hobbes. You continue to hide from MY response: The BASIS for what he said he didn’t “see” was his FALSE ASSUMPTION:

   WATTERSON: It would seem to me, though, that when you make up a friend for yourself, you would have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you. So Hobbes is more real than I suspect any kid would (NOT could) dream up.

   Since Calvin ENJOYED the treehouse fight with Hobbes, and since Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, Watterson disproved his assumption, and therefore the basis for what he said he didn’t “see”.

10. about 17 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “If the main point of my post was about climate change, why did I include Donald Trump’s election in the list?”

    Strawman argument. I never said it was. It was obviously A point, not the “main point”.

    It’s hardly unusual for a climate hysteric to be anti Trump.