Recent Comments

1. about 18 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “How can I have “previously claimed that Hobbes is objectively real” when I have consistently quoted Watterson as saying “Hobbes is more to do with the subjective nature of reality than with dolls coming to life.”?”

   You previously claimed that the living Hobbes exists independent of Calvin’s mind:

   objective

   : 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.

   I confronted you with the washing machine strips, which ABSOLUTELY prove that Hobbes CANNOT be the large living tiger that Calvin sees and that YOU claimed he “really” is. You wracked your brains trying to refute it. ALL your efforts FAILED UTTERLY, and you KNOW this. It’s why you were forced to FINALLY say “He portrays Calvin as objectively real and Hobbes as SUBJECTIVELY real.”

   YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT THE LIVING HOBBES HAS NO OBJECTIVE REALITY. YOU FINALLY ADMITTED THAT THE REALITY OF THE LIVING HOBBES IS SUBJECTIVE:

   subjective /səb-jĕk′tĭv/

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

   And you CANNOT say that none of reality is objective, since you said Calvin is portrayed as objectively real, an acknowledgement that objective reality exists, Calvin is part of it, and it’s distinct from the subjective reality of the living Hobbes.

   “I also make the point that we see Hobbes as Calvin sees him when Hobbes is alone therefore Calvin does see Hobbes in his natural state.”

   You’ve admitted that Calvin can imagine Hobbes alone, so that’s proof of nothing. In contrast, the washing machine strips irrefutably prove that Hobbes’ “natural state” CANNOT objectively be the large living tiger that Calvin sees. You admitted that Hobbes’ “state” is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind.

   You admitted Hobbes has no objective reality. Face up to it.

2. about 21 hours ago on FoxTrot Classics

   Peter’s attitude towards reading is sad and pathetic. I needed no assigned list to want to read. I loved reading books, summer or no summer.

3. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “So what? The fact remains that Calvin DID enjoy the fight therefore REFUTING Watterson’s claim.” So Calvin enjoys SOME of his fights with Hobbes but is genuinely angry with Hobbes over the other fights. That is SO WHAT.”

   Watterson assumed no one would argue with an imaginary friend. HE REFUTED HIS OWN ASSUMPTION, leaving you with NO basis for your “confirmation”.

   “I have agreed in the past that Watterson admits it may be a fantasy but not a normal one.”

   So not only do you agree that Watterson admits that there’s nothing in the strip showing Hobbes must be real, it’s also the case that YOU CANNOT provide ANY proof that Hobbes is real. You’ve admitted this. In CONTRAST, the washing machine strips ABSOLUTELY prove that Hobbes CANNOT be the large living tiger that Calvin sees and that YOU claim he is. YOU ARE UNABLE TO REFUTE THIS, and you KNOW you can’t. It’s why you were forced to FINALLY say “He portrays Calvin as objectively real and Hobbes as SUBJECTIVELY real.” YOU ADMITTED HOBBES IS NOT OBJECTIVELY REAL. Face up to it.

4. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I keep telling you that I have not “finally admitted” that Hobbes is an example of subjective reality but have been saying so all along.”

   You are blatantly misrepresenting your previous position. It WAS your initial claim that Hobbes is OBJECTIVELY real:

   objective

   : 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.

   You initially claimed that the reality of Hobbes is independent of Calvin’s mind. Not only is Hobbes NOT perceptible by all observers (therefore he CAN’T be objectively real), you were FORCED to back off your claim in the face of what I showed with the washing machine strips, which ABSOLUTELY prove that Hobbes OBJECTIVELY CANNOT be the large living tiger that Calvin sees and that YOU claim he “really” (ie objectively) is. IT IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. The ONLY response you were able to come up with in the face of this FACT was to make the pathetically FALSE assumption that if Calvin sees something, it MUST be real and possible. We KNOW that assumption is false.

   That’s EXACTLY why you FINALLY said “He portrays Calvin as objectively real and Hobbes as SUBJECTIVELY real.” YOU ADMITTED HOBBES IS NOT OBJECTIVELY REAL.

   As you are wont to do, you attempt to run away from the meaning of YOUR OWN WORDS:

   subjective /səb-jĕk′tĭv/

   adjective

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

   Not only do you ADMIT that you have NO proof that Hobbes is real, as when you said “Calvin COULD have imagined Hobbes tricking him”, YOU ADMITTED THAT THE REALITY OF HOBBES IS DEPENDENT ON OR TAKING PLACE IN A PERSON’S MIND RATHER THAN THE EXTERNAL WORLD. Face up to it.

5. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I do not deny omitting the full context of Bill Watterson’s quote. I have explained that I was unaware of it until you explained it to me.”

   You continue to omit the context even after I gave it to you. Therefore, you have no real excuse not to provide it. It is apparent that you do so because you KNOW the assumption that Watterson based his “suspicion” on was something he refuted by showing Calvin enjoying the fight with Hobbes.

   “You rightly say that Calvin clearly enjoys some of his arguments with Hobbes. However, you miss the fact that there are also times when Calvin and Hobbes are not play-fighting but are genuinely angry with one another”

   So what? The fact remains that Calvin DID enjoy the fight, thereby REFUTING Watterson’s claim:

   WATTERSON: 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.

   Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, thereby refuting Watterson’s “suspicion”. As West says,

   WEST: Well, at the risk of getting into psychobabble, 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.

   He points out that an IMAGINARY friendship CAN include arguments, which again DISPROVES Watterson’s assumption, leaving YOU with NO basis for your “confirmation”. Watterson’s only response to West was to say:

   WATTERSON: Yeah, well, I would hope that the friendship between Calvin and Hobbes is so complex that it would transcend a normal fantasy.

   HE DOES NOT SAY THE FRIENDSHIP TRANSCENDS A FANTASY, only a NORMAL fantasy.

6. 3 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “You have acknowledged that the reality of Hobbes is SUBJECTIVE, ie DEPENDENT on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.”

   “I have indeed kept quoting Watterson…“Calvin sees Hobbes one way. Everyone else sees him another way. I think that’s how life works. No two people see the world in exactly the same way. Hobbes is more to do with the subjective nature of reality than with dolls coming to life.””

   You never tire of regurgitating that which I’ve repeatedly refuted. The “it’s all about subjective perception” claim CANNOT EXPLAIN THE WASHING MACHINE. It is an inanimate object. It can see NOTHING. It can only hold what is OBJECTIVELY small enough to fit in it. HOBBES MUST OBJECTIVELY BE THE SIZE OF A DOLL. As I’ve shown, NONE of your pathetic attempts to refute the logic of the washing machine EVER work. You KNOW this, even though you PRETEND otherwise. Watterson ALSO knew it, which is why he was forced to admit that the reality of Hobbes had to be blurred, an admission that he has no definite reality.

   And as I’ve pointed out, any claim by you OR Watterson that there is no objective reality is UTTER NONSENSE. As I said, stick your hand in a blast furnace, then try to pretend that your hand isn’t OBJECTIVELY burned. Not only that, you contradicted yourself by saying “He portrays Calvin as objectively real, which is an acknowledgement by you that objective reality exists and Watterson portrays it.

   “Hobbes is subjective”

   I know he is. You’ve finally admitted that the living Hobbes is “DEPENDENT on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world”, AND that he does NOT have “reality independent of the mind”. Face up to it.

7. 3 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I keep explaining that I am still using Bill Watterson’s quote in the context that is relevant to me.”

   You denied that you OMIT the full context of the quote. Your denial is FALSE. Its “relevance” to you “personally” does NOT change the fact that you OMIT the context even after I gave it to you. It shows that your “confirmation” was based on a Watterson assumption that no kid would make up a friend to argue with him. But Watterson showed Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes. HE REFUTED HIS OWN ASSUMPTION. So your “confirmation” has NO basis. It’s apparent that’s the TRUE reason why you omit the context, not its “personal relevance”.

8. 3 days ago on FoxTrot Classics

   “Her choice of meals may not be to everyone’s taste”

   “Not to everyone’s taste”?? She’s the ONLY person in the family who likes the taste of her cooking. That’s an EXTREMELY poor way to treat the rest of her family.

   “but that does not mean her cooking is awful.”

   It DOES mean her cooking is awful. Peter obviously STARVED for the night rather than eat the awful stuff she cooked. Food that people DON’T want to eat is awful by definition.

   “I suspect her meals are well made and that it is her family’s limited ideas about what constitutes food that is unappetizing.”

   She obviously wants to dictate what everyone else should find “appetizing”. You assume that they didn’t even taste or smell the swill she served them.

   You sound like the kind of person who thinks everyone else should like what you like.

9. 4 days ago on FoxTrot Classics

   Yes, and she also displayed her petty jealousy of her mother, who cooks things that her family LOVES.

10. 4 days ago on FoxTrot Classics

    She may BELIEVE that she’s doing the right thing, but she is indeed clueless that her family LOATHES her AWFUL cooking.