Robert4170's Profile
Robert4170 Free
Recent Comments
- about 1 hour ago on Calvin and Hobbes
-
about 10 hours ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
“I find it very hard to imagine that Calvin would imagine this while lying dazed in Mom’s rose bushes.”
It’s ludicrous to claim that Calvin wouldn’t be thinking to himself (as manifested by the Hobbes he IMAGINES) that his mom is going to be upset about her rose bushes.
“YOU are obviously the one who is lying”
Wrong. UNLIKE you when you LIED for MONTHS inaccurately claiming Watterson said could instead of would EVEN AFTER I GAVE YOU THE CORRECT QUOTE AND ITS SOURCE, I ACCURATELY quoted YOU saying ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”. It is YOU who falsely claimed that I’m the only one saying that. YOU SAID IT AS WELL, AND NO AMOUNT OF EVASION ON YOUR PART CAN CHANGE THAT FACT.
You’re just trying to avoid the fact that you’ve said OVER AND OVER and OVER and OVER that “Hobbes is NOT objectively real”. You’ve said it so many times that it’s way, way, WAY too late to back off it now. You’ve even tried to back off it before, THEN backed off your backing off and said it AGAIN OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
YOUR OWN WORDS ADMIT THAT HOBBES IS IMAGINARY. You are trying to run away and hide from YOUR OWN WORDS.
-
1 day ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
Furthermore, not only are you trying to deny YOUR OWN WORDS, you are trying to deny the very MEANING of the word objective itself:
ob·jec·tive
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
Not even YOU would be INSANE enough, STUPID enough to claim that Hobbes is perceptible by all observers. Indeed, the very FOUNDATION of the strip is that Hobbes is NOT perceptible by all observers. You even admitted that this is the case ONLY TWO DAYS AGO when you said “The only character in the strip who sees Hobbes is Calvin.” What, you’re going to try to backtrack on THAT?
Since Hobbes is obviously NOT perceptible by all observers, he is obviously NOT objectively real. THEREFORE, LOGIC DICTATES THAT HE IS IMAGINARY, as YOU acknowledged when you said ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”. The way you run away from not only YOUR OWN WORDS, but the MEANING of words, and logic itself is truly remarkable.
Furthermore,you have explicitly stated that you’re not claiming Hobbes is real. You try to pretend that “imaginary” is somehow different from “not real”. It’s nonsense to claim that something can be “both” not real and not imaginary. Something that is imaginary is NOT real BY DEFINITION. A CANNOT be “both” A and not A. The claim that “imaginary” is “different” from “not real” amounts to saying that “Not A” is different from “Not A”. Your claim that Hobbes is “simultaneously not real and not imaginary” is an absurdity.
You are trying to run away and hide not only from YOUR OWN WORDS, but the MEANING of words and LOGIC ITSELF.
-
1 day ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
“As for your claim that having no objective reality means that he is imaginary”
You’re LYING again. It isn’t just “my claim”. It’s what YOU said. YOU said ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”.
“that means that I must stop saying that he has no objective reality”
I’ll give you credit for FINALLY showing enough intelligence to realize the logical implications of YOUR OWN WORDS (OMG, it took you WAY too long). Instead of having the intellectual integrity to face up to the logic you’ve finally realized and what you’ve said, you try to run away from, deny, and hide from YOUR OWN WORDS. You’re much like Richard Nixon’s press secretary, Ron Ziegler, who, when confronted with what he had said, responded that his previous statements were “inoperative”.
You’ve said OVER AND OVER and OVER and OVER that “Hobbes is NOT objectively real”. You’ve said it so many times that it’s way, way, WAY too late to back off it now. You’ve even tried to back off it before, THEN backed off your backing off and said it AGAIN OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
-
1 day ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
“Evidence of nothing since you’ve admitted Calvin can imagine that.”
“I agreed that it is NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE.”
So you need to stop citing it. The washing machine strips, OTOH, are CONCLUSIVE PROOF that Hobbes CANNOT be the large living tiger that Calvin sees. Your PATHETIC and ONLY attempt at a refutation of them COMPLETELY relies on the FALSE assumption that anything that Calvin sees MUST be real and possible. Watterson himself admitted that he had blurred what Hobbes is, an admission that Hobbes has no definite reality.
“Watterson…. admitted that a kid MIGHT make up an imaginary friend who disagreed with him.”
Which means that the BASIS on which Watterson said he didn’t “see” Hobbes as a product of Calvin’s imagination is FALSE.
“I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real…..I am explaining why I stopped seeing Hobbes as part of Calvin’s imagination.”
You try to pretend that “imaginary” is somehow different from “not real”. It’s nonsense to claim that something can be “both” not real and not imaginary. Something that is imaginary is NOT real BY DEFINITION. A CANNOT be “both” A and not A. The claim that “imaginary” is “different” from “not real” amounts to saying that “Not A” is different from “Not A”. Your claim that Hobbes is “simultaneously not real and not imaginary” is an absurdity.
“I am certainly not arguing that Hobbes is OBJECTIVELY REAL.”
ob·jec·tive
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 you reaffirm that Hobbes is NOT objectively real, and since part of the MEANING of objectively real is having reality independent of the mind, you are AGREEING with me that Hobbes does NOT have reality independent of the mind.
You ALSO said:
”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”
YOUR VERY OWN WORDS ADMIT THAT HOBBES IS IMAGINARY.
-
2 days ago
on For Better or For Worse
“A woman. “
So what? You’re making the false claim that a man can’t make an observation about female behavior. Of course, females make observations about MALE behavior ALL THE TIME.
-
2 days ago
on For Better or For Worse
Who are you to determine what I’m “qualified” to comment on?
-
2 days ago
on For Better or For Worse
Females frequently have that attitude. “don’t give me advice, just empathize!”
-
2 days ago
on For Better or For Worse
Never underestimate the human capacity for denial of the truth. Ellie nailed it.
-
2 days ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
“You’ve admitted that Calvin can imagine Hobbes doing that.”
“I didn’t so much admit that”
Your semantic evasion doesn’t change the fact that you said it. You also said mere hours ago that “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”.
You try to pretend that “imaginary” is somehow different from “not real”. It is utter nonsense to claim that something can be “both” not real and not imaginary. Something that is imaginary is NOT real BY DEFINITION. A CANNOT be “both” A and not A. The claim that “imaginary” is “different” from “not real” amounts to saying that “Not A” is different from “Not A”. Your claim that Hobbes is “simultaneously not real and not imaginary” is an absurdity.
You also said mere hours ago that “I am certainly not arguing that Hobbes is OBJECTIVELY REAL.”
ob·jec·tive
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 you reaffirm that Hobbes is NOT objectively real, and since part of the MEANING of objectively real is having reality independent of the mind, you are AGREEING with me that Hobbes does NOT have reality independent of the mind.
You ALSO said:
”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”
YOUR VERY OWN WORDS ADMIT THAT HOBBES IS IMAGINARY.
“Watterson states ….he does not see Hobbes as either a doll who comes to life NOR A PRODUCT OF CALVIN’S IMAGINATION”
What he said he didn’t “see” was based on 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 (You LIED for MONTHS, claiming he said could) dream up.
Watterson falsified his ASSUMPTION by showing Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes. Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys.
Watterson also admitted that he had blurred the reality of Hobbes with the washing machine strips, an admission that Hobbes has no definite reality.
“My point throughout this…debate…is that Hobbes may not have objective reality”
The desperate, LYING tactics you try to sneak past me are remarkable. You did NOT say Hobbes “may” not have objective reality. You’ve said MANY times that “Hobbes is NOT objectively real”. You’ve said it so many times that it’s way, way, WAY too late to back off it now. You’ve even tried to back off it before, THEN backed off your backing off and said it AGAIN MANY times.
Since Hobbes is obviously NOT perceptible by all observers (not even YOU are enough of an insane moron to claim he is), he is OBVIOUSLY NOT OBJECTIVELY REAL according to the very meaning of the word objective, the meaning you constantly run and hide from.
You ALSO said:
”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”
YOUR VERY OWN WORDS ADMIT THAT HOBBES IS IMAGINARY.
Furthermore, you have explicitly stated that you’re not claiming Hobbes is real. So BY YOUR VERY OWN WORDS, you ADMIT Hobbes does NOT have reality independent of the mind, you DON’T claim he’s real, and you ADMIT that he’s imaginary.
It’s quite masochistic of you to say that you “enjoy” having me expose your lies, your faulty arguments, and your own admission that Hobbes is imaginary.