Recent Comments

1. about 1 hour ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   You said “I agree with Bill Watterson that Hobbes is subjective….. I agree with Watterson that Hobbes is an example of the subjective nature of reality.”

   You said “You convinced me that subjective reality WOULD mean that Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.” You therefore logically admit that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

   Thanks again for your admission that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

   You ALSO admitted that the living Hobbes is NOT objectively real (since he is not perceptible by all observers, he does not fit the definition of something objectively real, logic that you said “very well” to), and YOU said “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”, so you logically admit that the living Hobbes is imaginary.

   Thanks again for your admission that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.

2. about 1 hour ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “he concluded, ‘Hobbes is more to do with the subjective nature of reality’”

   Yes, you said “I agree with Bill Watterson that Hobbes is subjective….. I agree with Watterson that Hobbes is an example of the subjective nature of reality.”

   YOU said “You convinced me that subjective reality WOULD mean that Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.” So YOU therefore logically admit that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind. Thanks for your admission.

   And again, your metaphysics (and Watterson’s) are godawful. Both of you attempt a ludicrous false equivalence between subjective perception and thinking that an inanimate object is alive. For example, one person may perceive chocolate as delicious and another person may perceive it as awful tasting, but no rational person would say that such a difference in perception is the same as thinking that a chocolate bar is alive.

   “WE see Hobbes as Calvin sees him when no one…is present”

   Again, so what? We see many things as Calvin sees them: Alien worlds, Calvin in the vacuum of space in a toy wagon, Calvin the size of a galaxy, etc. Obviously, readers seeing such things doesn’t mean they are real in the world of the strip. Since you said “I did indeed say that Calvin COULD imagine Hobbes doing things when he was alone”, and “I agree that the strips of Hobbes on his own are not actual evidence”, such instances are meaningless as supportive of anything.

3. about 1 hour ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I have explained many times that….Hobbes MUST have objective reality”

   You’re pathetically trying to run and hide from your own admission that you were wrong. You said only yesterday that “Very well, according to the definition of objective which you use here then neither the…. doll Hobbes nor the Hobbes whom Calvin sees….has objective reality”. You’re also contradicting and pathetically trying to hide from your own often repeated statement that “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”. How inane of you to contradict yourself.

   “as well as subjective reality”

   Since subjective means not objective, and vice versa, your claim that the reality of Hobbes is “both” objective and subjective is an “A is A and not A” absurdity. It makes you astoundingly ignorant, insane, or both. I quote again:

   The Law of Non-Contradiction is a foundational principle in both classical and modern logic…this law states that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense…. it’s integral to the way we think, reason, and understand reality.

   So you’re not interested in having integrity of thought, reason, or understanding reality.

   “Watterson explained”

   My, you’re fond of reciting Watterson “gospel”, as though quoting your C&H “god” renders logic and your own admissions meaningless. It doesn’t. Watterson is no “god”. He’s flat out wrong. What he said he didn’t “see” was based on an assumption:

   “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.”

   Watterson DISPROVED his assumption by showing Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes. Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, so he WOULD imagine a friend who argues with him. That leaves him and you with NOTHING.

4. about 4 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   You said “I agree with Bill Watterson that Hobbes is subjective….. I agree with Watterson that Hobbes is an example of the subjective nature of reality.”

   You said “You convinced me that subjective reality WOULD mean that Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.” You therefore logically admit that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

   Thanks again for your admission that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

   You ALSO admitted that the living Hobbes is NOT objectively real, and YOU said “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”, so you logically admit that the living Hobbes is imaginary.

   Thanks again for your admission that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.

5. about 4 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “Calvin imagined the caption SHARES PRIZE MONEY WITH TIGER FRIEND”

   So what? Calvin’s mind can easily acknowledge that others see the doll while deluding himself into thinking he’ll share the money with his imaginary friend. He does much the same thing when he pretends that Hobbes is a five foot solid living animal while acknowledging that Hobbes is actually small enough to fit in the washing machine (a physical impossibility for a five foot solid living animal).

   “ Watterson showed us the photo that Calvin imagined NOT as Calvin imagined it but as other characters in the strip would see it.”

   Nonsense. You’ve admitted that Calvin DID imagine the photo (there is no “would”). Calvin’s mind was acknowledging that others would see the DOLL in a photo. To claim that we don’t see what Calvin imagines is as nonsensical as claiming that when Watterson drew the alien worlds that Spiff visits, or the void of outer space that Calvin “travels” in his toy wagon, that he wasn’t showing what Calvin imagines AND sees. Your claim doesn’t wash at all.

   “when Hobbes IS alone, we see Hobbes as Calvin sees him”

   Again, so what? We see many things as Calvin sees them: Alien worlds, Calvin in the vacuum of space in a toy wagon, Calvin the size of a galaxy, etc. Obviously, readers seeing such things doesn’t mean they are real in the world of the strip. Since you said “I did indeed say that Calvin COULD imagine Hobbes doing things when he was alone”, and “I agree that the strips of Hobbes on his own are not actual evidence”, such instances are meaningless as supportive of anything.

6. about 6 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   You said “I agree with Bill Watterson that Hobbes is subjective….. I agree with Watterson that Hobbes is an example of the subjective nature of reality.”

   You said “You convinced me that subjective reality WOULD mean that Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.” You therefore logically admit that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

   Thanks again for your admission that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

   You ALSO admitted that the living Hobbes is NOT objectively real, and YOU said “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”, so you logically admit that the living Hobbes is imaginary.

   Thanks again for your admission that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.

7. about 6 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “Calvin obviously imagined A photo of himself with Hobbes”

   Yes, and Hobbes appeared as the DOLL he really is. Calvin’s mind was acknowledging that others would see the DOLL.

   “Watterson showed us the photo NOT as Calvin WOULD imagine”.

   Nonsense. You’ve admitted that Calvin DID imagine the photo (there is no “would”). Calvin’s mind was acknowledging that others would see the DOLL in a photo. To claim that we don’t see what Calvin imagines is as nonsensical as claiming that when Watterson drew the alien worlds that Spiff visits, or the void of outer space that Calvin “travels” in his toy wagon, that he wasn’t showing what Calvin imagines AND sees. Your claim doesn’t wash at all.

   “Watterson said of Hobbes, ‘I suspect he is more real than any kid would make up.’”

   You still hold to my prediction that you will NEVER have the cojones to cite the COMPLETE Watterson quote:

   ”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.”

   Watterson DISPROVED his assumption by showing Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes. Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, so he WOULD imagine a friend who argues with him. So Watterson’s “suspicion” and what he didn’t “see” had NO basis. In fact, he agreed with the statement 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.”

   ”Calvin WOULD imagine a friend who is more protective of him and more admiring towards him than Hobbes is.”

   BS. Calvin ENJOYED the fight with Hobbes during the treehouse fight, where Hobbes called him a “nincompoop”. Calvin obviously ENJOYED the lack of “admiration”. And Hobbes can do NOTHING to protect his “best friend” from Moe. An inconvenient fact for you.

8. about 7 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”

   Since something that is “not real” is imaginary by definition, and by not arguing that Hobbes is real, you are not arguing against Hobbes being unreal, ie IMAGINARY.

   “Watterson stated that he did NOT see Hobbes as ‘a product of Calvin’s imagination’”

   What Watterson said he “didn’t see” was based on an ASSUMPTION he made:

   ”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.”

   Watterson DISPROVED his assumption by showing Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes. Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, so he WOULD imagine a friend who argues with him. So Watterson’s “suspicion” and what he didn’t “see” had NO basis. In fact, he agreed with the statement 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.”

   “I am impressed by the fact that Hobbes appears as Calvin sees him when he is alone.”

   Since you said “I did indeed say that Calvin COULD imagine Hobbes doing things when he was alone”, and “I agree that the strips of Hobbes on his own are not actual evidence”, such instances are meaningless as supportive of anything.

   You said “I agree with Bill Watterson that Hobbes is subjective….. I agree with Watterson that Hobbes is an example of the subjective nature of reality.”

   You said “You convinced me that subjective reality WOULD mean that Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.” You therefore logically admit that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

   Thanks again for your admission that the LIVING Hobbes is only real in Calvin’s mind.

9. about 21 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “According to YOUR argument …then the world would also be imaginary because everyone sees the world differently.”

   This is a nonsense claim by you. The world is obviously not imaginary. It is objectively real. The world within the strip is also obviously objectively real. Does Calvin “see” that his dad is not his dad, or his mom is not his mom? No. Does Calvin “see” that he’s not a little boy who lives in a house, has to attend school, must wait for the school bus, knows a girl named Susie, a kid named Moe, a teacher named Miss Wormwood, etc etc.? No. Neither does any other character in the strip. That’s because all those things (and many others) ARE objectively real within the strip. But the living Hobbes is NOT objectively real, (as you ADMITTED), and it is YOU who said “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”, so you logically admit that the living Hobbes is imaginary.

   Your metaphysics (and Watterson’s) are godawful. Both of you attempt a ludicrous false equivalence between subjective perception and thinking that an inanimate object is alive, or that fiction is reality. For example, one person may perceive chocolate as delicious and another person may perceive it as awful tasting, but no rational person would say that such a difference in perception is the same as thinking that a chocolate bar is alive. One woman may perceive a dress as ugly and another may perceive it as beautiful, but again, no rational person would say that’s the equivalent of thinking that the dress is alive. One person may have a positive perception of the U.S., and another may have a negative perception, but again, no rational person would say that’s the equivalent of thinking that the U.S. is part of the planet Vulcan.

   But, of course, you are not rational, since you attempt to deny objective reality, logic, and rational metaphysics.

10. about 23 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “According to YOUR argument that Hobbes must be imaginary because other characters see him differently from how Calvin sees him”

    It is YOU who said “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”, and since the living Hobbes is not perceived by perceived by all observers and is therefore not objectively real by its definition, you logically admit that the living Hobbes is imaginary.

    ALSO, you try to run and hide from the fact that since it is an inanimate object, the washing machine is NOT a character NOR an observer, meaning your (and Watterson’s) entire “characters see the world differently” argument DOES NOT APPLY. The machine can ONLY hold what is OBJECTIVELY small enough to fit in it. Therefore, the true, objective size of Hobbes MUST be that of a DOLL. That is OBJECTIVE fact, as much an OBJECTIVE fact as Calvin’s father being unable to fit into Calvin’s clothes.