Recent Comments

1. about 2 hours ago on FoxTrot Classics

   Both the books and the series did capture me right away.

2. about 2 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   I love it when objective reality literally hits Calvin in the face.

3. about 2 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “Hobbes is also OBJECTIVE it that he is shown doing things that Calvin does not know about.”

   Since you said “I did indeed say that Calvin COULD imagine Hobbes doing things when he was alone”, Hobbes doing things alone is evidence of nothing.

   Also, 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 reason or even thought.

   “This strip could be seen as Calvin imagining Hobbes”

   Previously, you said “Hobbes MUST have objective reality”. Now you’re contradicting yourself. Thanks for backing off.

   The meaning of the word objective is:

   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

   You and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is perceptible ONLY by Calvin. Therefore, he is NOT objectively real by the very meaning of the word objective. YOU SAID “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”. Therefore, you admit multiple times that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.

   Thanks for admitting it multiple times.

4. about 2 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I know that there are grounds for believing that Watterson made a false assumption”

   There are more than “grounds”. Since Calvin ENJOYED the treehouse fight with Hobbes, and he obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, Watterson’s “suspicion” about Hobbes being real CLEARLY had no basis.

   “but it is still the assumption on which he based the fictional character of Hobbes.”

   Nonsense. Here’s the quote again:

   WATTERSON: I really have absolutely no knowledge about imaginary friends. It would seem to me, though, that when you make up a friend for yourself, you would (you lied and claimed he said could) have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you. So Hobbes is more real than I suspect any kid would dream up.

   So his assumption was the basis for his “suspicion” that Hobbes is real, NOT the basis for the character per se.

   “As for your claim that something cannot be both SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE, I have pointed out…. Watterson’s view that Hobbes is part of ‘the subjective nature of reality’”

   I know you have. So Watterson said the nature of Hobbes is subjective. The definition of subjective is:

   Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.

   So both you and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind (Calvin’s). You also said “YOU convinced me that purely subjective reality would mean that he IS imaginary”. So you again admit that Hobbes IS imaginary. Thanks for admitting that Hobbes is imaginary multiple times.

   “most characters see Hobbes as a doll whereas Calvin sees Hobbes as a living being”

   You said “characters (no “most”) in the strip see him differently from how Calvin sees him”. So you contradict yourself. And you’re lying again. It isn’t “most” characters. It’s ALL other characters. Watterson said “ nobody else sees him, sees Hobbes, in the way that Calvin does”.

5. about 3 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   They should be in excellent shape.

6. 1 day ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   I wonder if dried prunes taste much different than raisins (dried grapes) do. Watterson sure sounds like he didn’t care much for oatmeal or exercise (running generates quite a bit of body heat, so 20 degrees would feel much less cold after awhile).

7. 1 day ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Watterson said “nobody else sees him, sees Hobbes, in the way that Calvin does.” You said “characters in the strip see him differently from how Calvin sees him”.

   The meaning of the word objective is:

   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

   You and Watterson agree that the LIVING Hobbes is perceptible ONLY by Calvin. Therefore, he is NOT objectively real by the very meaning of the word objective. YOU SAID “a Hobbes without objective reality WOULD be an imaginary Hobbes”. Therefore, you admit that the LIVING Hobbes is imaginary.

   And since you ALSO said that “I agree with Bill Watterson that Hobbes is ‘an example of the subjective nature of reality’” AND YOU said “YOU convinced me that purely subjective reality would mean that he IS imaginary”, you again admit that Hobbes IS imaginary.

   You also said “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real.” Thanks for admitting multiple times that Hobbes is imaginary.

8. 1 day ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “As to your claim that Watterson’s stated view ‘I suspect that he is more real than any kid would make up’ was based on a false assumption, it does not matter whether fiction was based on a false assumption. Watterson showed that he was NOT basing Hobbes on what he thought Calvin WOULD imagine.”

   It isn’t just my claim, it’s a fact. You’re failing logic again. Here’s the full quote:

   WATTERSON: I really have absolutely no knowledge about imaginary friends. It would seem to me, though, that when you make up a friend for yourself, you would (you lied and claimed he said could) have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you. So Hobbes is more real than I suspect any kid would dream up.

   Watterson was basing his “suspicion” that Hobbes is real on his ASSUMPTION that “when you make up a friend for yourself, you would have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you.”

   But since Calvin ENJOYED the treehouse fight with Hobbes, and he obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, Watterson’s “suspicion” about Hobbes being real (NOT the “fiction”) had no basis.

9. 1 day ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “So you’re not interested in reason or even thought.”

   “You are WRONG again.”

   No, I am RIGHT. 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 reason or even thought.

   “Hobbes is shown as alive when he is alone and that he looks directly at us and speaks directly to us.”

   Since you said “I did indeed say that Calvin COULD imagine Hobbes doing things when he was alone”, Hobbes alone is evidence of nothing. You also said “although Hobbes speaking directly to us made it unlikely.”

   “unlikely” and “COULD” directly contradict your claim that Hobbes “MUST“ have objective reality. Thanks for backing off.

10. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “I am non-political, so I don’t use ‘the power of the State’”

    You claimed a benefit from guns being outlawed, the outlawing that is enforced by States. So your claim is not true.

    “You provided some obscure supposed references without actually providing the source. “

    I cited sources. You came up with nothing to counter them.