Recent Comments

1. about 6 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “You said something you knew to be untrue. That is a lie.”

   “I agree that I was careless in still using the quote as I remembered it after you had corrected me but it was NOT lying.”

   “careless” means indifferent to something. So you admit you were indifferent to truth. You said something you KNEW to be untrue. That makes it a LIE, no matter how much you try to deny it.

   “You have also accused me in the past of “using Strawman tactics” and I asked you to explain what Strawman tactics are. You replied that I did not have to know what Strawman tactics are in order to use them and you did explain them to me and I remember part of your explanation. All that showed that you have a much better understanding of devious tactics than I do.”

   You’ve indeed used strawman tactics in addition to misquoting Watterson, me, and yourself, tactics that smack of desperation. Instead of citing a SINGLE instance of me using a strawman argument, you pathetically claim that anyone (including literally dozens of university websites) who is intelligent enough to comprehend and recognize debate fallacies must therefore be guilty of using them himself. That’s faulty logic (not to mention another LIE) that again smacks of desperation.

   Again, you’ve said MANY times that “Hobbes is NOT objectively real”.

   You ALSO said ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”.

   LOGIC says THEREFORE, by the MEANING of YOUR OWN WORDS, YOU ADMIT THAT HOBBES IS IMAGINARY.

   You’ve also said multiple times that “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”. You try to pretend that “imaginary” is somehow different from “not real”. The claim that “imaginary” is “different” from “not real” amounts to saying that “Not A” is different from “Not A”. Again, LOGIC dictates that your claim is absurd.

   The way you run away from the meaning of YOUR OWN words and logic itself is truly remarkable.

2. about 6 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Furthermore, you have explicitly stated that you’re not claiming Hobbes is real. You try to pretend that “imaginary” is somehow different from “not real”. It’s nonsense to claim that something can be “both” not real and not imaginary. Something that is imaginary is NOT real BY DEFINITION. A CANNOT be “both” A and not A. The claim that “imaginary” is “different” from “not real” amounts to saying that “Not A” is different from “Not A”. Your claim that Hobbes is “simultaneously not real and not imaginary” is an absurdity.

   Again, you are trying to run away and hide not only from YOUR OWN WORDS, but the MEANING of words and LOGIC ITSELF.

   “Watterson has claimed at least twice that he did NOT see Hobbes as part of Calvin’s imagination.”

   What Watterson only CLAIMED he didn’t “see” was based on his FALSE assumption:

   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 (You LIED for MONTHS, claiming he said could) dream up.

   Watterson falsified his ASSUMPTION by showing Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes. Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys.

   Watterson also admitted that he had blurred the reality of Hobbes with the washing machine strips, an admission that Hobbes has no definite reality.

3. about 6 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I did state several times that Hobbes has no objective reality”

   Yes, you’ve said MANY times that Hobbes has no objective reality. You’ve also tried to deny the MEANING of the word 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

   “if Hobbes having no objective reality means that he is imaginary then I must have been wrong to say that he has no objective reality.”

   Nope, you were RIGHT to say it MANY times. Since Hobbes is NOT perceptible by all observers (not even YOU would be INSANE enough to deny this), he is obviously NOT objectively real. Since you REALIZED this, you emphatically DECLARED MANY times that Hobbes is NOT objectively real. By the MEANING of the word objective, you are acknowledging that Hobbes is NOT independent of individual thought and does NOT have reality independent of the mind, which MEANS he is IMAGINARY.

   You explicitly acknowledged this simple and obvious logic when you said ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”.

   When you FINALLY realized the LOGIC of what you were saying, you then pathetically tried to BACKTRACK from what you said MANY times, even though it’s OBVIOUS that Hobbes is not objectively real. But THEN you IGNORED your own backtrack, saying yet AGAIN MANY TIMES that Hobbes has no objective reality. You twist yourself into knots with all your backtracking and backtracking from your backtracking. The way you run away from not only YOUR OWN WORDS, but the MEANING of words and logic itself is truly remarkable.

4. 1 day ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I have not lied.”

   Of course you’ve lied. You continued to claim that Watterson said “could” even after I gave you the correct quote and its source. You said something you KNEW to be UNTRUE. That is a LIE. Per your usual practice, you try to deny the meaning of words.

   You LIED AGAIN just YESTERDAY when you said “My point…is that Hobbes may not have objective reality”. YOU DID NOT USE THE WORD “MAY”. You said MANY times that “Hobbes IS NOT objectively real”. That is a DIRECT QUOTE.

   “My ‘admission that Hobbes is imaginary’ sounds like one of YOUR lies.”

   No, it is YOU who are attempting to lie about the MEANING of the words YOU USE and the LOGIC of what they mean.

   You’ve said MANY times that “Hobbes is NOT objectively real”.

   You ALSO said ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”.

   THEREFORE, by the MEANING of YOUR OWN WORDS, YOU ADMIT THAT HOBBES IS IMAGINARY.

   “Hobbes does something which WE KNOW about but which CALVIN DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT.”

   You admitted only two days ago that that proves NOTHING, since you’ve admitted that Calvin can IMAGINE and PRETEND that. The washing machine strips, OTOH, are DEFINITIVE proof that Hobbes CANNOT be the large living tiger that Calvin sees. Your pathetic and ONLY attempt at a refutation of this fact relies completely on the assumption that anything Calvin sees must be real and possible, which is OBVIOUSLY false. The proof that the washing machine strips demonstrate is so definitive that Watterson was forced to admit that he had blurred the reality of Hobbes, an admission that Hobbes has NO definite reality.

   You also said only three days ago that “I am NOT arguing that Hobbes is real”. You try to pretend that “imaginary” is somehow different from “not real”. The claim that “imaginary” is “different” from “not real” amounts to saying that “Not A” is different from “Not A”.

   Your claim is absurd. So are all your arguments.

5. 1 day ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I am certain that I have never argued that Hobbes is imaginary.”

   What IS a certainty is that you have said MANY times in NO uncertain terms that Hobbes has NO objective reality.

   You ALSO said ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”.

   THEREFORE, by the MEANING of YOUR OWN WORDS, YOU ADMIT THAT HOBBES IS IMAGINARY.

   Furthermore, you have explicitly stated that you’re not claiming Hobbes is real. You try to pretend that “imaginary” is somehow different from “not real”. It’s nonsense to claim that something can be “both” not real and not imaginary. Something that is imaginary is NOT real BY DEFINITION. A CANNOT be “both” A and not A. The claim that “imaginary” is “different” from “not real” amounts to saying that “Not A” is different from “Not A”. Your claim that Hobbes is “simultaneously not real and not imaginary” is an absurdity.

   You are trying to run away and hide from YOUR OWN WORDS, as well as the LOGIC of your own words.

   “Watterson did not see Hobbes as part of Calvin’s imagination”

   What Watterson said he didn’t “see” was based on his FALSE assumption:

   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 (You LIED for MONTHS, claiming he said could. It was no “accident”.) dream up.

   Watterson falsified his ASSUMPTION by showing Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes. Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys.

   Watterson also admitted that he had blurred the reality of Hobbes with the washing machine strips, an admission that Hobbes has no definite reality.

6. 2 days ago on FoxTrot Classics

   I’ve never seen Paige with a boy she wants.

7. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “Watterson states ….he does not see Hobbes as either a doll who comes to life NOR A PRODUCT OF CALVIN’S IMAGINATION”

   What he said he didn’t “see” was based on his FALSE assumption:

   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 (You LIED for MONTHS, claiming he said could) dream up.

   Watterson falsified his ASSUMPTION by showing Calvin ENJOYING the fight with Hobbes. Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys.

   Watterson also admitted that he had blurred the reality of Hobbes with the washing machine strips, an admission that Hobbes has no definite reality.

   “My point throughout this…debate…is that Hobbes may not have objective reality”

   The desperate, LYING tactics you try to sneak past me are remarkable. You did NOT say Hobbes “may” not have objective reality. You’ve said MANY times that “Hobbes is NOT objectively real”. You’ve said it so many times that it’s way, way, WAY too late to back off it now. You’ve even tried to back off it before, THEN backed off your backing off and said it AGAIN MANY times.

   Since Hobbes is obviously NOT perceptible by all observers (not even YOU are enough of an insane moron to claim he is), he is OBVIOUSLY NOT OBJECTIVELY REAL according to the very meaning of the word objective, the meaning you constantly run and hide from.

   You ALSO said:

   ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”

   YOUR VERY OWN WORDS ADMIT THAT HOBBES IS IMAGINARY.

   Furthermore, you have explicitly stated that you’re not claiming Hobbes is real. So BY YOUR VERY OWN WORDS, you ADMIT Hobbes does NOT have reality independent of the mind, you DON’T claim he’s real, and you ADMIT that he’s imaginary.

   It’s quite masochistic of you to say that you “enjoy” having me expose your lies, your faulty arguments, and your own admission that Hobbes is imaginary.

8. 2 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “I find it very hard to imagine that Calvin would imagine this while lying dazed in Mom’s rose bushes.”

   It’s ludicrous to claim that Calvin wouldn’t be thinking to himself (as manifested by the Hobbes he IMAGINES) that his mom is going to be upset about her rose bushes.

   “YOU are obviously the one who is lying”

   Wrong. UNLIKE you when you LIED for MONTHS inaccurately claiming Watterson said could instead of would EVEN AFTER I GAVE YOU THE CORRECT QUOTE AND ITS SOURCE, I ACCURATELY quoted YOU saying ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”. It is YOU who falsely claimed that I’m the only one saying that. YOU SAID IT AS WELL, AND NO AMOUNT OF EVASION ON YOUR PART CAN CHANGE THAT FACT.

   You’re just trying to avoid the fact that you’ve said OVER AND OVER and OVER and OVER that “Hobbes is NOT objectively real”. You’ve said it so many times that it’s way, way, WAY too late to back off it now. You’ve even tried to back off it before, THEN backed off your backing off and said it AGAIN OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

   YOUR OWN WORDS ADMIT THAT HOBBES IS IMAGINARY. You are trying to run away and hide from YOUR OWN WORDS.

9. 3 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   Furthermore, not only are you trying to deny YOUR OWN WORDS, you are trying to deny the very MEANING of the word objective itself:

   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

   Not even YOU would be INSANE enough, STUPID enough to claim that Hobbes is perceptible by all observers. Indeed, the very FOUNDATION of the strip is that Hobbes is NOT perceptible by all observers. You even admitted that this is the case ONLY TWO DAYS AGO when you said “The only character in the strip who sees Hobbes is Calvin.” What, you’re going to try to backtrack on THAT?

   Since Hobbes is obviously NOT perceptible by all observers, he is obviously NOT objectively real. THEREFORE, LOGIC DICTATES THAT HE IS IMAGINARY, as YOU acknowledged when you said ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”. The way you run away from not only YOUR OWN WORDS, but the MEANING of words, and logic itself is truly remarkable.

   Furthermore,you have explicitly stated that you’re not claiming Hobbes is real. You try to pretend that “imaginary” is somehow different from “not real”. It’s nonsense to claim that something can be “both” not real and not imaginary. Something that is imaginary is NOT real BY DEFINITION. A CANNOT be “both” A and not A. The claim that “imaginary” is “different” from “not real” amounts to saying that “Not A” is different from “Not A”. Your claim that Hobbes is “simultaneously not real and not imaginary” is an absurdity.

   You are trying to run away and hide not only from YOUR OWN WORDS, but the MEANING of words and LOGIC ITSELF.

10. 3 days ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “As for your claim that having no objective reality means that he is imaginary”

    You’re LYING again. It isn’t just “my claim”. It’s what YOU said. YOU said ”Hobbes having NO OBJECTIVE REALITY would mean that HE IS IMAGINARY”.

    “that means that I must stop saying that he has no objective reality”

    I’ll give you credit for FINALLY showing enough intelligence to realize the logical implications of YOUR OWN WORDS (OMG, it took you WAY too long). Instead of having the intellectual integrity to face up to the logic you’ve finally realized and what you’ve said, you try to run away from, deny, and hide from YOUR OWN WORDS. You’re much like Richard Nixon’s press secretary, Ron Ziegler, who, when confronted with what he had said, responded that his previous statements were “inoperative”.

    You’ve said OVER AND OVER and OVER and OVER that “Hobbes is NOT objectively real”. You’ve said it so many times that it’s way, way, WAY too late to back off it now. You’ve even tried to back off it before, THEN backed off your backing off and said it AGAIN OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.