Richard West explained the psychology of Calvin imagining Hobbes:
WEST: a lot of psychologists would say 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.
WATTERSON: Yeah, well, I would hope that the friendship between Calvin and Hobbes is so complex that it would transcend a normal fantasy.
Watterson did NOT dispute the fact that the friendship is a fantasy. He expressed his “hope” that it “transcends” a “normal” fantasy.
Watterson ALSO admitted that Hobbes has NO objective reality when he was forced to admit that he had blurred what Hobbes is when he was confronted with the washing machine strips. Objectively real things do NOT have blurred reality.
YOU SAID “you have convinced me that Hobbes having no objective reality means that he is imaginary”. So by your OWN WORDS, the logical FACT that Hobbes has no objective reality (he is not perceptible by anyone but Calvin, which fits the MEANING of not objectively real), and Watterson’s own words, you admit that Hobbes is imaginary.
“Watterson certainly stated that he intended Hobbes to be more realistic than an imaginary friend.”
You’re LYING again. Watterson said “The resolution of the question of whether Hobbes is real or not doesn’t concern me or interest me”. NO one who intends something would EVER say he’s disinterested in or unconcerned about it. He did NOT use the word “intend” at all. Here’s what he ACTUALLY said (I’m so glad I found the interview instead of relying on a dishonest person like you):
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 have somebody to agree with you, not to argue with you. So Hobbes is more real than I suspect any kid would dream up.
Since Calvin ENJOYED the treehouse fight with Hobbes, and since Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, Watterson disproved his assumption, and therefore the basis for his “suspicion” (NOT “intent”, as you FALSELY claimed) about seeing Hobbes as “more real” than someone Calvin would (NOT could, as you LIED about) imagine.
“Very good. One of your more intelligent arguments. However, as I said before…”
Yeah, you’re regurgitating what I’ve already refuted. I’ll repeat the refutation:
The truth of a contention has nothing to do with “readers disagreeing” about its truth. You’re using an ad populum fallacy, which refers to a claim that something is true (or “could be true”) simply because that’s what a large number of people believe. That’s nonsense. People “disagreeing” about a claim is not an adequate substitute for actual evidence (for example, for centuries people believed that the earth was the center of the solar system, but this was ultimately proved to be false).
I said that Calvin imagines a more academically capable and knowledgeable version of himself, which is HARDLY less difficult than imagining someone who is quicker thinking. That someone that Calvin imagines is Hobbes.
As I pointed out, if Calvin could REALLY duplicate solid matter with a cardboard box (even HIMSELF), he’d be IMMENSELY rich (it would be EASY for him to be so), yet he isn’t, a fact even you (as deluded as you are) can’t dispute.
Your claim that the duplicate “could be” real is clearly false. Therefore, your entire “Calvin couldn’t imagine a quicker thinking Hobbes” claim falls apart. You also said “I have often stated that I was aware that Calvin can IMAGINE and PRETEND Hobbes doing things when he is not around”.
“I have also reminded you that Watterson states in The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book that most of us would be horrified like Calvin is to meet a duplicate of themselves”
SO WHAT? Calvin isn’t like “most of us”. He’s a kid who loves to imagine alien monsters, dinosaurs, his own bicycle, his food, his school book, snow men, etc. threatening him. And he loves to imagine that his stuffed doll is a living tiger.
Of course you were LYING. You DELIBERATELY said something you KNEW was UNTRUE, because I gave you the CORRECT quote AND ITS SOURCE, yet you continued to quote Watterson as saying “could” instead of “would”. As you do with the words objective and subjective, you try to run from the meaning of a word:
lie
: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
He told a lie to avoid punishment.
Your actions PRECISELY fit that definition.
“I still feel that Calvin COULD not create someone like Hobbes who is able to outwit Calvin far more than Calvin is able to outwit Hobbes.”
Since Calvin OBVIOUSLY imagined a more academically capable and knowledgeable version of himself, which is HARDLY less difficult than imagining someone who is quicker thinking, your claim is clearly BOGUS.
Americans aren’t being bankrupted by health care, but increased costs are due to government regulations and restricting of supply. As I pointed out, LASIK is a good example. It’s an elective procedure that’s not covered by insurance and no subject to the same kind of controls. Over the past two decades, quality has risen as prices have fallen. In 1997, a precursor to LASIK surgery that involved the surgeon wielding a knife cost $8,000. In 2012, a safer laser-guided surgery cost only about $3,800. Prices halved in 15 years.
Tony Wilson didn’t go bankrupt. He DIED. Hardly a good alternative.
I’m not surprised you have positive things to say about communist Cuba, a place that countless Cubans have risked their lives to escape from. Funny how it isn’t the other way around, ie people risking their lives to move there.
Richard West explained the psychology of Calvin imagining Hobbes:
WEST: a lot of psychologists would say 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.
WATTERSON: Yeah, well, I would hope that the friendship between Calvin and Hobbes is so complex that it would transcend a normal fantasy.
Watterson did NOT dispute the fact that the friendship is a fantasy. He expressed his “hope” that it “transcends” a “normal” fantasy.
Watterson ALSO admitted that Hobbes has NO objective reality when he was forced to admit that he had blurred what Hobbes is when he was confronted with the washing machine strips. Objectively real things do NOT have blurred reality.
YOU SAID “you have convinced me that Hobbes having no objective reality means that he is imaginary”. So by your OWN WORDS, the logical FACT that Hobbes has no objective reality (he is not perceptible by anyone but Calvin, which fits the MEANING of not objectively real), and Watterson’s own words, you admit that Hobbes is imaginary.