PH: VA is a Philosophical Realist?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I'm not distorting your argument. I'm showing why it is, in fact, philosophically realist. I know you think it isn't. But what you're supposed to do is address my reasons for saying it is. Which you don't.

Again. You say your argument is not philosophically realist, and I say it is - and I show why. And again, you don't address my argument for why it is. And, absurdly, you offer the fact that you've always held an opinion as evidence for its truth. Do you realise how ridiculous that is?

This is a serious charge in claiming my views [in the said case] is that of philosophical realism.
I did not detect any proper argument from you that concluded my said views are that of philosophical realism. What I read was some sort of blah..blah. blah and handwaving that I am a philosophical realist. So there was no argument that I had failed to address.

Btw, I am a realist, i.e. an empirical-realist but not a philosophical realist as defined below.

I suggest you present a proper argument to show why the said views of mine are that of philosophical realism.

Note this definition of Philosophical Realism:

Philosophical realism – usually not treated as a position of its own but as a stance towards other subject matters – is the view that a certain kind of thing (ranging widely from abstract objects like numbers to moral statements to the physical world itself) has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.[1][2][3][4]
This includes a number of positions within epistemology and metaphysics which express that a given thing instead exists independently of knowledge, thought, or understanding.[5][6]
This can apply to items such as the physical world, the past and future, other minds, and the self, though may also apply less directly to things such as universals, mathematical truths, moral truths, and thought itself.
However, realism may also include various positions which instead reject metaphysical treatments of reality entirely.[7][8]

Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind. Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[9]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[10]
In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.
Today it is more often contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV