Cowboy

Robert4170 Free

Recent Comments

  1. about 18 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “I have explained many, many times that I know that many of the things that Calvin appears to see are in his imagination”

    THAT IS YOUR ADMISSION THAT JUST BECAUSE CALVIN SEES SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN IT MUST BE REAL AND POSSIBLE. THEREFORE, CITING WHAT CALVIN SEES IS NOT PROOF OF THE REALITY OR POSSIBILITY OF WHAT HE IS SEEING. Your inability to comprehend simple, obvious logic is truly astounding.

    “I know that the washing machine is an inanimate object…and that it can neither see nor perceive anything.”

    Exactly. It OBLITERATES the “Hobbes is whatever people see him as” claim. THE MACHINE CAN ONLY HOLD WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY SMALL ENOUGH TO FIT IN IT. HOBBES CANNOT BE THE LARGE LIVING TIGER THAT CALVIN SEES, JUST AS CALVIN CANNOT GO TO MARS IN A TOY WAGON JUST BECAUSE HE SAW IT.

    “otherwise Calvin would NOT be able to see Hobbes there.”

    Is he able to see himself as the size of a bug or a galaxy? Is he able to see himself as 2D? Is he able to see himself flying to Mars in a toy wagon? You know PERFECTLY well that the answer is YES, even though you KNOW that those things ARE NOT REAL OR POSSIBLE.

    As I said, you are anything but a rational man.

  2. about 19 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “The machine sees nothing and feels nothing. “

    Exactly. It OBLITERATES the “Hobbes is whatever people see him as” claim. THE MACHINE CAN ONLY HOLD WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY SMALL ENOUGH TO FIT IN IT.

    “Calvin has seen Hobbes inside it”

    That means NOTHING. It is proof of NOTHING. You ADMITTED this when you said ““I have explained many, many times that I know that many of the things that Calvin appears to see are in his imagination”.

    THAT IS YOUR ADMISSION THAT JUST BECAUSE CALVIN SEES SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN IT MUST BE REAL AND POSSIBLE. THEREFORE, CITING WHAT CALVIN SEES IS NOT PROOF OF THE REALITY OR POSSIBILITY OF WHAT HE IS SEEING. Your inability to comprehend simple, obvious logic is truly astounding.

    HOBBES CANNOT BE THE LARGE LIVING TIGER THAT CALVIN SEES, JUST AS CALVIN CANNOT GO TO MARS IN A TOY WAGON JUST BECAUSE HE SAW IT.

    As I said, you are anything but a rational man.

  3. about 19 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “suspect”?? That’s your admission that you DO NOT have proof of the reality of Hobbes. You have ACKNOWLEDGED this. Whatever Watterson claimed was his “intent”, the fact remains that what he ACTUALLY SHOWED IN THE STRIP IS THAT HOBBES CANNOT BE THE LARGE LIVING TIGER THAT CALVIN SEES.

  4. about 20 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “he did not intend “the subjective nature of reality” to mean imagination and neither did I.”

    It was YOU who said "Hobbes is subjectively real rather than objectively real.”

    subjective /səb-jĕk′tĭv/

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

    The meaning of what you said is that the reality of Hobbes is dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world. Your claim that that’s somehow “different” from Hobbes being imagined by Calvin is ludicrous.

    You also EXPLICITLY said that the reality of Hobbes is NOT objective:

    ob·jec·tive əb-ˈjek-tiv

    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 the MEANING of WHAT YOU SAID is that Hobbes does NOT have reality independent of the mind. Your claim that that’s somehow “different” from Hobbes being imagined by Calvin is ludicrous.

  5. about 20 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “I do NOT consider the suspicion to be invalid”

    It’s OBVIOUSLY invalid. It RESTS on the ASSUMPTION that no one would make up a friend who argues with him. But Calvin obviously WOULD do something he enjoys, and he DID enjoy the fight with Hobbes. Once again, you show that you’re oblivious to logic. His response to West is his acknowledgement that a fantasy friendship can be complex enough to include arguments.

  6. about 21 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “I certainly did not intend to mean that Hobbes does NOT have reality independent of the mind.”

    You are running away from the meaning of your own words. You know perfectly well what objective and subjective mean, the very words that YOU USED. You don’t have the integrity to stand by what you said.

    You said "Hobbes is subjectively real rather than objectively real.”

    subjective /səb-jĕk′tĭv/

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

    ob·jec·tive əb-ˈjek-tiv

    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.

    “As I say, he has shown that he is independent of Calvin’s mind many times by doing things and speaking to us when Calvin is elsewhere.”

    You have acknowledged that Calvin can imagine those things, so it’s proof of NOTHING. You have ACKNOWLEDGED that you have NO proof of the reality of Hobbes.

  7. about 21 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “But that is NOT what I meant nor what Bill Watterson meant.”

    Your desire to try to weasel out of the meaning of your own words is remarkable. You know perfectly well what objective and subjective mean. You’ve acknowledged the existence of objective reality.

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

    Reality is not subjective in nature. As I’ve pointed out many times, stick your hand in a blast furnace, then try to claim with a straight face that the burned state of your hand is merely subjective in nature. You are being ludicrous, and so is Watterson. Also, you said “he portrays Calvin as objectively real and Hobbes as subjectively real”. That is YOUR concession that objective reality exists, Calvin is part of it, and Hobbes is NOT part of it.

    “He explains that we all see reality in different ways”

    That CANNOT explain the washing machine strips. The machine can see NOTHING. YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID REFUTATION OF THE FACT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HOBBES TO REALLY BE THE LARGE LIVING TIGER THAT CALVIN SEES.

  8. about 21 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “Yes, I now know that Watterson came to agree that a fantasy friendship can be complex enough to include arguments.”

    Which doesn’t keep you from endlessly citing his INVALIDATED “suspicion” as “confirmation” of something. You know it’s invalid, yet you continue to cite it.

  9. about 21 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “I certainly agree that Calvin seeing something is not strong evidence.”

    In fact, it is evidence of NOTHING. YOU just ADMITTED this!:

    “I have pointed out many, many times that I OBVIOUSLY DO NOT believe that something is real because Calvin sees it. We all know that much of the strip is in his imagination.”

    YOU JUST ADMITTED that Calvin seeing something DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE REAL AND POSSIBLE. THEREFORE, your citation of what Calvin sees does NOT refute the fact that the washing machine strips INCONTROVERTIBLY prove that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HOBBES TO REALLY BE THE LARGE LIVING TIGER THAT CALVIN SEES. You are the densest, most irrational man I’ve ever talked to.

  10. about 21 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “I do not omit the full quote.”

    Of course you do. You continue to do so even after I gave it to you and provided the source. That’s because you KNOW that the full quote shows that Watterson’s “suspicion” was based on an ASSUMPTION that he DISPROVED, namely, that no one would make up a friend who argues with him:

    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.

    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.

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

    Watterson DISPROVED his assumption and therefore his “suspicion” by showing Calvin ENJOYING his fight with Hobbes. His response to West is his acknowledgement that a fantasy friendship can be complex enough to include arguments.