Recent Comments

1. about 1 hour ago on The Born Loser

   She pronounced it twue, twue. :)

2. about 15 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I now accept that Hobbes must have some objective reality as well as subjective reality.”

   This is a ludicrous attempt by you to escape the logical consequence of Hobbes not being objectively real, the consequence you acknowledged when you said that “Hobbes having no objective reality means that he is imaginary” (a direct quote). You delude yourself into thinking you can escape that consequence by attempting to have it both ways by claiming that the reality of Hobbes is “both” subjective and objective (even though he is NOT objectively real, since he is NOT perceptible by all observers, which even YOU can’t deny).

   By the meaning of the words subjective and objective, you are claiming that the reality of Hobbes is simultaneously dependent on AND independent of individual thought. You also claim that the reality of Hobbes takes place in a person’s mind AND has reality independent of the mind. This amounts to you saying “A is simultaneously A and not A”. That’s an EGREGIOUS violation of fundamental logic, namely the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your inability to accept or even comprehend such a fundamental, simple, OBVIOUS principle of logic, as well as your willingness to attempt to violate it, calls into question both your sanity and your intellectual ability, as well as your intellectual honesty.

3. about 20 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I now accept that Hobbes must have some objective reality as well as subjective reality.”

   It’s both funny and sad to see you squirm, to see you pathetically try to deny what the strip shows AND logic AND the meaning of words AND your own acknowledgements. You literally spent MONTHS saying things such as:

   “He portrays Calvin as objectively real and Hobbes as subjectively real” (you said this multiple times)

   “I admitted that Hobbes is subjectively real”

   “I agree to a point that Hobbes’ reality seems to be relative.” (rel·a·tive: a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing)

   “It is certainly true that Hobbes’s reality is influenced by characters whom he is with.” (You said this a mere six days ago. The reality of an objective thing is NOT influenced by individual thought).

   I said “your ‘some reality’ (of Hobbes) is subjective.” To which you replied “Exactly. That is something that we agree on.” YOU SAID THIS a MERE FOUR DAYS AGO.

   You were CORRECT to say this, because Hobbes does NOT fit the definition of 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

   Not even YOU would be INSANE enough to claim that Hobbes is perceptible by all observers. Therefore, he is NOT objectively real by the very MEANING of objective. And according to the OTHER part of the meaning, Hobbes does NOT have reality independent of the mind and is NOT independent of individual thought. You acknowledged this INESCAPABLE logic when you said that “Hobbes having no objective reality means that he is imaginary” (a direct quote).

   You are in an UNTENABLE position, trying to deny the MEANING of the word objective, the FACT that Hobbes is NOT perceptible by all observers, AND the logic that YOU have acknowledged.

4. about 23 hours ago on Geech

   More like 80.

5. about 23 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   It is YOU who have agreed with Watterson’s admission. Indeed, you’ve EMPHATICALLY STATED MANY times that Hobbes has no objective reality. You said this as recently as FOUR DAYS AGO. Both you AND Watterson were FORCED to acknowledge that Hobbes has no objective reality, because he is OBVIOUSLY NOT perceptible by all observers, which means he does NOT fit the very MEANING of objective:

   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

   By the OTHER part of the MEANING of objective, Hobbes is NOT independent of individual thought and does NOT have reality independent of the mind. You acknowledged that “Hobbes having no objective reality means that he is imaginary” (a direct quote). When you finally became dimly aware of the implications of what you acknowledged, you pathetically tried to pretend that facts don’t matter (including you lying about what Watterson said), logic doesn’t matter, the meaning of words doesn’t matter, the acknowledgement of Watterson, and even your own acknowledgements don’t matter.

   None of your pathetic evasions, red herrings, or obfuscations can change logic, the facts of reality, the facts of what the strip shows, the acknowledgement of Watterson, or your own acknowledgements. You admitted that Hobbes is imaginary. You just don’t have the intellectual courage to face up to it.

6. about 23 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I have changed my mind about Hobbes many, many times.”

   You’ve backtracked and backtracked from your backtracks so many times that your backtracks are worthless. All your backtracking doesn’t change the facts of reality or what the strip shows OR the meaning of what you’ve said, regardless of your pathetic, Calvinesque denials of them.

   It is physically impossible for a five foot living animal (Hobbes) to fit inside the tub of a top loading household washing machine with an agitator. That is objective fact. The tub is an INANIMATE OBJECT that CANNOT have a subjective perception or ANY perception. This fact therefore KILLS any argument from you or Watterson that seeing Hobbes as a doll or a five foot living animal is merely a matter of subjective perception. The OBJECTIVE size of Hobbes MUST be that of a DOLL.

   Your SOLE counter argument is that Calvin thinks he sees a five foot living Hobbes in the tub. You rely on the ASSUMPTION that ANYTHING that Calvin thinks he sees MUST be real and possible. That is a false assumption. We KNOW that Calvin OFTEN sees UNREAL, IMPOSSIBLE THINGS, such as going to Mars in a TOY wagon with NO propulsion, NO guidance, NO enclosure, NO oxygen supply, and NO protection from the vacuum of space (does Calvin know he needs to breathe, and that vacuum will kill him?). You’d have to be COMPLETELY disconnected from reality to claim that Calvin really DID go to Mars. The same goes for Calvin flying, Calvin being the size of a bug or a galaxy, being 2D etc, etc., ALL of which Calvin saw, and all of which Calvin OBVIOUSLY IMAGINED.

   Since we KNOW that Calvin thinks he sees a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY, what he thinks he sees must THEREFORE be IMAGINARY. YOU DO NOT HAVE A GOOD COUNTER ARGUMENT TO THIS FACT. Even your “god” Watterson was FORCED to acknowledge the contradiction when he said he had blurred what Hobbes is, an admission that Hobbes has NO objective reality.

7. about 23 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “Hobbes is more real than Calvin would make up”

   Watterson DISPROVED this claim by showing Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes, and he obviously WOULD do something he enjoys. Your claim is false.

   “and more real than he COULD make up.”

   Nonsense. Calvin’s imagination is ASTOUNDINGLY creative, complex, and detailed, SO much so that he was able to imagine a very smart, thoughtful, articulate duplicate of HIMSELF, with its own different personality. That’s HARDLY less difficult than imagining his stuffed tiger is alive. Hobbes is not better at math or able to write better than Calvin. Calvin has an IMMENSE vocabulary and understanding of cultural, philosophical, and ethical issues. He can EASILY imagine Hobbes.

   “Hobbes is more to do with the subjective nature of reality than with dolls coming to life.”

   You’re using a begging the question fallacy, assuming Hobbes is real (ie part of reality) even though you said “I have not been arguing that Hobbes is real”.

   “He can do things which Calvin does not know about”

   You’ve admitted that Calvin can imagine that, so it’s evidence of nothing. You’re also contradicting your own statement that “I have not been arguing that Hobbes is real”. Again, it’s absurd to claim there’s a difference between “not real” and “imaginary”.

   “I respect Bill Watterson’s view that Hobbes is a comment on the subjective nature of reality”

   “I was wrong to argue that Hobbes represents subjective reality”

   Strange that you respect that which you think is wrong.

8. 2 days ago on The Born Loser

   “Ronald Reagan used his wife’s soothsayer, Joan Quigley advice to govern the country.”

   That is a false claim. At most you could say that Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer regarding the President’s schedule. President Reagan specifically stated “No policy or decision in my mind has ever been influenced by astrology,” and you have zero proof otherwise.

9. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Once you finally comprehended what you had admitted to, you tried to backtrack, saying in essence “never mind what I said many times, Hobbes is objectively real”, even though he OBVIOUSLY is NOT, since he is NOT perceptible by all observers.

   But then, you backtracked from your backtrack, reiterating that the reality of Hobbes is subjective. You did this multiple times, as recently as three days ago. I said “your ‘some reality’ (of Hobbes) is subjective.” To which you replied “Exactly. That is something that we agree on.”

   The MEANING of subjective is:

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

   MEANING you said that the reality of Hobbes is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.

   None of your pathetic evasions, red herrings, or obfuscations can change these facts. You admitted that Hobbes is imaginary. You just don’t have the intellectual courage to face up to it.

10. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “You say that I have even backtracked from my backtrack.”

    I state facts. The below are direct quotes of you:

    “He portrays Calvin as objectively real and Hobbes as subjectively real” (you said this multiple times)

    “I admitted that Hobbes is subjectively real”.

    “I agree to a point that Hobbes’ reality seems to be relative.” (rel·a·tive: a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on another thing)

    “It is certainly true that Hobbes’s reality is influenced by characters whom he is with.” (You said this a mere five days ago. The reality of an objective thing is NOT influenced by individual thought).

    You were confronted with the logical consequences of Hobbes having no objective reality by the very meaning of objective:

    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

    So by the MEANING of what you SAID and ADMITTED MANY times, Hobbes is NOT independent of individual thought and does NOT have reality independent of the mind. In fact, you acknowledged that “Hobbes having no objective reality means that he is imaginary” (a direct quote).