4 ms·
Repeaters of that quote invariably neglect to mention that those are the words of a fictional character that lived to be at least two thousand years old.
by greyish_water 15y ago
Repeaters of that quote invariably neglect to mention that those are the words of a fictional character that lived to be at least two thousand years old.
- doty 15y agoIt's an interesting and eloquent statement, and worth thinking about. There's no need to resort to ad-hominem attacks against whoever said it, no matter how fictional they might be.
- ramchip 15y agoI don't think you can call that an ad hominem attack. For one, he's not talking about the actual author of the quote (the writer), and for two... well, it's just not an attack at all. I find it very relevant that a person who does all these things is a (fictional) character that lives for thousands of years; that means he has plenty of time to learn a lot about many different fields and trades. Normal humans don't have this luxury.
- dredmorbius 15y agoI've lived roughly half a normal lifespan and have accomplished most of that list myself. No need to live for thousands of years. Methinks you've missed the point.
- doty 15y agoSure I can. The argument was challenging the merits of the statement based on some quality of the entity that made the statement, not based on the statement itself. It's the very definition of "ad hominem". You can argue that the sentiment expressed by the fictional character is impractical, as you do in the last part of your comment. I disagree with you, but that's neither here nor there.
- dredmorbius 15y agoThere are plenty of fictional characters whose remarks are both widely quoted and found to be enlightening and/or inspirational to many. Several are currently running for President.