Recent Comments

1. 39 minutes ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “we do NOT know whether or not Calvin was imagining his duplicate and sometimes pretending to be his ‘duplicate’.”

   OF COURSE we know that. For you to imply that Calvin “really” has such fantasy powers is as ridiculous as claiming he “really” went to Mars in a toy wagon, “really” flies, “really” shrinks to the size of a bug, etc. As I’ve pointed out, if Calvin could REALLY duplicate solid matter (EVEN A LIVING PERSON) using only a cardboard box, he’d be IMMENSELY RICH. It would be EASY for him to be so. Since he OBVIOUSLY is NOT RICH (which even YOU, as IRRATIONAL as you are, can’t deny), he OBVIOUSLY imagined the “duplicate”, JUST as he imagines Hobbes. You have NO response to this. As I said, it’s HARDLY less difficult for him to imagine a smart, thoughtful, helpful duplicate of HIMSELF than it is to imagine that his stuffed tiger is alive. This DISPROVES your claim that Calvin “couldn’t” imagine Hobbes.

2. about 11 hours ago on The Born Loser

   “oh baby, you are so talented! And they are so dumb!”

3. about 11 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   I’ve come to learn that good health and happiness are far more important than being rich.

4. about 11 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I did acknowledge that Hobbes has no objective reality but I have since changed my mind, or ‘backtracked’ as you like to call it.”

   You say you changed your mind, but you’ve changed your mind about changing your mind MULTIPLE times. 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 FIVE DAYS AGO.

   “I agree with Watterson that Hobbes is an example of subjective reality”

   You’re doing it AGAIN. You said only YESTERDAY that “I was wrong to argue that Hobbes represents subjective reality”. NOW you’re back to saying the reality of Hobbes IS subjective. You’re always saying you’re wrong about being wrong about being wrong, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

   You flip flop CONSTANTLY, hoping that doing so will enable you to run away and hide from your acknowledgement that “Hobbes having no objective reality means that he is imaginary” (a direct quote). You even tried the tactic of LUDICROUSLY claiming that the reality of Hobbes is “both” subjective and objective (a claim you JUST CONTRADICTED). This amounts to you saying “A is simultaneously A and not A”. You IGNORE fundamental logic, namely the Law of Non-Contradiction. Your inability to accept or even comprehend such a fundamental, simple, OBVIOUS principle of logic is astounding, showing a lack of sanity and intellectual ability. Your pathetic claims and tactics are UTTERLY irrational and ineffective. 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.

5. about 11 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “other characters in the strip see him differently from how Calvin sees him”

   The washing machine strops DESTROY the ENTIRE “it’s all about what characters subjectively see” argument. The machine can see NOTHING. It’s an INANIMATE OBJECT that CANNOT have a subjective perception of ANY kind. 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 OBJECTIVE size of Hobbes MUST be that of a DOLL.

   The ONLY counter argument you were able to pathetically come up with in response is that Calvin thinks he sees a five foot living Hobbes in the tub. Your ENTIRE argument relies 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. Therefore, what Calvin THINKS he sees CANNOT be used to refute the OBJECTIVE reality of Hobbes being the size of a doll. 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.

   “we see Hobbes as Calvin sees him when Hobbes is alone – and Hobbes is able to see us and speak to us”

   You’ve admitted that Calvin can imagine and pretend that, so it means NOTHING.

   “Another argument against Calvin imagining Hobbes speaking to us is that Calvin cannot see us when he is not in the strip but Hobbes can see us so it must really be Hobbes who is looking at us and speaking to us”

   You’re lying again. Calvin broke the fourth wall MULTIPLE times, so he can EASILY imagine Hobbes doing so.

6. about 13 hours ago on The Born Loser

   She pronounced it twue, twue. :)

7. 1 day 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.

8. 1 day 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.

9. 1 day ago on Geech

   More like 80.

10. 1 day 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.