Robert4170's Profile
Robert4170 Free
Recent Comments
- about 6 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes
-
about 11 hours ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
Well well. Instead of your usual mantra, you try using actual logic. Unfortunately for you, your attempt doesn’t succeed. As you’ve done before, you attribute a word to someone that he didn’t use. You falsely claimed for months that Watterson said “could” instead of “would”. Now you’re doing it again. I’ll quote myself from only two days ago:
“YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CALVIN CAN IMAGINE THAT, SO IT’S PROOF OF NOTHING.”
I said “can”, not “could”. From Merriam Webster:
can
auxiliary verb
: be physically or mentally able to
My meaning was used to indicate Calvin’s ABILITY to do something. It was not used to indicate possibility. So your attempt to equate what I say with what you say fails.
You have acknowledged that Calvin is ABLE to imagine what Hobbes does, including being alone. You have acknowledged that YOU DO NOT HAVE PROOF OF THE REALITY OF HOBBES.
I’ll say it yet again. In contrast to your LACK of proof, THE WASHING MACHINE STRIPS ARE INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT HOBBES CANNOT BE THE LARGE LIVING TIGER THAT CALVIN SEES.
You DO NOT have a rational argument (in fact, no real argument) against this fact. ALL your attempts to argue against it are utter failures. You KNOW this, but you simply refuse to admit it. You’ve already acknowledged that Hobbes has no objective reality, and I have managed to get a concession out of you that Calvin may be imagining Hobbes. In other words, you’ve gone halfway. All you need to do is take that final step, and acknowledge what reason, physical reality, mathematics, and what is depicted in the strip show.
-
1 day ago
on Geech
Trading the known for the unknown? No thanks.
-
1 day ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
“we both acknowledge that Calvin MAY be imagining Hobbes”
DON’T TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, you dishonest WEASEL. I never used the word “may”. And you DID acknowledge that Calvin is doing so. You acknowledged that Hobbes DOES NOT HAVE OBJECTIVE REALITY. You acknowledged that the reality of Hobbes is purely SUBJECTIVE. The washing machine strips PROVE that CALVIN MUST BE IMAGINING THE SIZE OF HOBBES.
You’re as rational as a wind up doll as well as being dishonest.
-
1 day ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
“But… Watterson clearly states in The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book that he does NOT see Hobbes as “a product of Calvin’s imagination.”
You are so PATHETIC. You crawl back into your argument from authority nonsense, close your mind to reason and facts, sit there with your fingers in your ears, and chant your “but Watterson says, but Watterson says” mantra over and over.
Once again, WHAT WATTERSON ACTUALLY SHOWED IN THE STRIP IS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HOBBES TO BE THE LARGE LIVING TIGER THAT CALVIN SEES. WHAT HE SEES CANNOT FIT IN THE TUB. YOU ARE IN THE INANE POSITION OF CLAIMING THAT WHAT WATTERSON CLAIMS HE DOESN’T “SEE” OVERRULES LOGIC, PHYSICS, MATHEMATICS, AND REALITY ITSELF. You are an IRRATIONAL MAN.
Bill Watterson ADMITTED that WHAT HE SHOWED was a CONTRADICTION of what Calvin sees. That’s EXACTLY why he HAD to say that he had BLURRED the reality of Hobbes, an ADMISSION that Hobbes DOES NOT HAVE OBJECTIVE REALITY.
You have ACKNOWLEDGED that Hobbes DOES NOT HAVE OBJECTIVE REALITY. You have ACKNOWLEDGED that the reality of Hobbes is purely SUBJECTIVE.
Talking to you is like talking to a friggin’ wind up doll.
-
2 days ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
“No, he does NOT show that Hobbes cannot be the large living tiger that Calvin sees.”
The washing machine strips PROVE otherwise. Calvin IMAGINES that he sees the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY of Hobbes in the washing machine, just as he sees the PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY of being 2D, going to Mars in a toy wagon, etc. It’s an ASININE attempt at semantic evasion on your part to claim that Calvin is SEEING nothing, PERCEIVING nothing in those situations. You’re making the LUDICROUS assertion that he didn’t SEE the dinosaurs he imagined, that he doesn’t SEE the four foot spaceship he’s in, that he doesn’t SEE the alien worlds he imagines visiting, that he didn’t SEE Mars when he imagined visiting it.
From the Cambridge dictionary:
to imagine something:
picture: When I say ‘your car’ you have a picture of that in your head.in your mind’s eye: In my mind’s eye, I’m still a uni student and not a middle-aged worker.
From Dictionary.com:
to form a mental IMAGE of
What an utter idiot you are to claim that forming a mental IMAGE of something isn’t SEEING it in your mind.
He SEES himself as doing those things PRECISELY because he IMAGINES them. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER BETWEEN HIM IMAGINING WHAT HE IS SEEING IN THOSE SITUATIONS VS IMAGINING THAT HE IS SEEING A FIVE FOOT HOBBES IN THE WASHING MACHINE. YOUR CLAIM THAT HE CAN ONLY SEE WHAT IS REAL AND POSSIBLE IS LUDICROUS. IT IS PHYSICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A FIVE FOOT HOBBES TO FIT IN THE TUB. ANYTHING THAT A PERSON SEES THAT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE MUST BE IMAGINED.
-
2 days ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
“Is he able to see himself as the size of a bug or a galaxy? Is he able to see himself as 2D? Is he able to see himself flying to Mars in a toy wagon?”
“NO. However, he is able to IMAGINE himself in such situations and we have seen him imagining them all.”
OMG, What an ASININE attempt at semantic evasion on your part to claim that Calvin is SEEING nothing, PERCEIVING nothing in those situations. You’re making the LUDICROUS assertion that he didn’t SEE the dinosaurs he imagined, that he doesn’t SEE the four foot spaceship he’s in, that he doesn’t SEE the alien worlds he imagines visiting, that he didn’t SEE Mars when he imagined visiting it.
From the Cambridge dictionary:
to imagine something:
picture: When I say ‘your car’ you have a picture of that in your head.in your mind’s eye: In my mind’s eye, I’m still a uni student and not a middle-aged worker.
From Dictionary.com:
to form a mental IMAGE of
What an utter idiot you are to claim that forming a mental IMAGE of something isn’t SEEING it in your mind.
He SEES himself as doing those things PRECISELY because he IMAGINES them. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER BETWEEN HIM IMAGINING WHAT HE IS SEEING IN THOSE SITUATIONS VS IMAGINING THAT HE IS SEEING A FIVE FOOT HOBBES IN THE WASHING MACHINE. YOUR CLAIM THAT HE CAN ONLY SEE WHAT IS REAL AND POSSIBLE IS LUDICROUS. IT IS PHYSICALLY, MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A FIVE FOOT HOBBES TO FIT IN THE TUB. ANYTHING THAT A PERSON SEES (INCLUDING FORMING A MENTAL IMAGE OF IT) THAT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE MUST BE IMAGINED.
-
2 days ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
“As we both agree, the machine cannot see or perceive anything.”
Exactly. It OBLITERATES the “Hobbes is whatever people see him as” claim. THE MACHINE CAN ONLY HOLD WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY SMALL ENOUGH TO FIT IN IT. HOBBES MUST OBJECTIVELY BE THE SIZE OF A DOLL. YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE LIVING HOBBES HAS NO OBJECTIVE REALITY.
“However, we still see Hobbes as a living being when he is completely alone. “
YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CALVIN CAN IMAGINE THAT, SO IT’S PROOF OF NOTHING. YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE PROOF OF THE LIVING HOBBES. THE WASHING MACHINE STRIPS PROVE THAT HOBBES CANNOT BE THE LARGE LIVING TIGER THAT CALVIN SEES.
GOD, you’re a dense, irrational moron.
-
3 days ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
You just ADMITTED that both you and Watterson used subjective THE WAY IT’S DEFINED:
subjective /səb-jĕk′tĭv/
Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.
The meaning of what you said is that the reality of Hobbes is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world. Your claim that that’s somehow “different” from Hobbes being imagined by Calvin is ludicrous.
-
3 days ago
on Calvin and Hobbes
“I keep explaining that I meant “subjective” the same way that Watterson meant it. Watterson clearly meant that other characters see Hobbes differently from how Calvin sees him”
You just ADMITTED that both you and Watterson used subjective THE WAY IT’S DEFINED:
subjective /səb-jĕk′tĭv/
Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.
The meaning of what you said is that the reality of Hobbes is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world. Your claim that that’s somehow “different” from Hobbes being imagined by Calvin is ludicrous.
“Very well. I do concede that you have a much better memory for exact words than I have.”
I think it’s more a matter of you distorting what people say to support your false claims.
“I am still amazed that you keep missing the point that I keep trying to make.”
I don’t miss a thing. I’m not amazed by your unethical and pusillanimous pretense that I haven’t ALREADY refuted your “Calvin sees it, therefore it MUST be real” NONSENSE.
Once AGAIN , your PATHETIC and ONLY excuse for an “argument” is your FALSE ASSUMPTION that anything Calvin sees MUST be real and possible. You are lying your pathetic head off in making that assumption, because you KNOW it’s false. You ADMITTED your assumption is FALSE when you said:
“I have explained many, many times that I know that many of the things that Calvin appears to see are in his imagination”.
As usual, you are too much of a sniveling coward to stand behind the meaning of YOUR OWN WORDS.
THAT IS YOUR ADMISSION THAT JUST BECAUSE CALVIN SEES SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN IT MUST BE REAL AND POSSIBLE. THEREFORE, CITING WHAT CALVIN SEES IS NOT PROOF OF THE REALITY OR POSSIBILITY OF WHAT HE IS SEEING.
And you CANNOT argue that Hobbes “must” be some sort of magical “exception” to Calvin frequently imagining UNREAL AND IMPOSSIBLE things, because YOU HAVE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CALVIN CAN IMAGINE HOBBES.
HOBBES CANNOT BE THE LARGE LIVING TIGER THAT CALVIN SEES, JUST AS CALVIN CANNOT GO TO MARS IN A TOY WAGON JUST BECAUSE HE SAW HIMSELF DOING IT. I FULLY expect that you will PRETEND that what I have pointed out YET AGAIN does not exist. BE A MAN FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE AND FACE UP TO THE REALITY THAT IS RIGHT IN YOUR FACE.