[knighthack]

You take a morally superior position, and you are condescending.

As if discussions and examples using imaginary characters are somehow 'lowly', and can't be used as a fair commentary of society.

In comparison, Plato's works often feature dialogues where characters, including Socrates, engage in arguments, which present various perspectives on philosophical issues through fictionalized conversations. That style of writing and the use of imaginary characters in argumentative discourse is actually hallmark of Plato's work.

The OP's style of writing (who you responded to) is therefore not out of the ordinary; just because you disagree with his or her "perceptions of the world" doesn't mean you should put it down as unworthy of reply for using "imaginary characters".

[s1artibartfast]

I don't think OPs points were on par with plato, and neither do you.

I think that form of communication is indicative of poor mental function and inability to communicate. The world would be better off if everyone simply refuses to engage with it and ridiculed it instead of validating it with engagement.

An anecdote is not an argument, and an imaginary one is even worse.