billionaires are a cancer on society [literally]
Ok so how does a cancer kill its host? It grows until it consumes so many nutrients that the other living cells don’t get enough. The host literally starves even if he eats plentifully. The same applies for the US: The billionaires are not only hoarding wealth, but by doing so they’re crippling the economy for workers and everybody besides themselves.
I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
Fuck man. Now I need to rewatch The Matrix
Do you think I’m promoting voluntary extinction? I don’t think anyone has to do that - not only would it not make a dent in the race to doomsday, but it’s unnecessary since we’ve probably already passed the point at which we’re capable of halting the runaway ecological collapse we’ve engineered - even if there was any indication of willingness on the part of the biggest polluters to draw down, which there isn’t.
What I find funny is those people who are still making more people, as if they’re not dooming them to live through a true apocalypse: global societal and ecological collapse, technological regression, famine, and the resurgence of self-perpetuating oligarchies. A dark ages, but one we’ll never come out of.
Let’s take the original comment at face value and in earnest for a moment.
Wouldn’t the human race be more like a parasite?
In all honesty, I don’t think the earth needs us, nor would we qualify for a symbiotic relationship. Earth really doesn’t need most of its inhabitants.
That would move to a more existential question of what it means for earth to survive or be “alive”? Support any life?
Yup! Of the things we could be, we’re most like a virus, but parasite might work. Most parasites don’t kill their hosts, and if they do it’s a secondary action - it usually isn’t the parasite itself that kills the host, but some virus or bacteria the parasite transmits. There are some really nasty parasitic worms that will kill you, or make you wish you were dead.
We’re definitely not symbiotic, like most macro and many micro organisms are.
If we consider the the ecosystem as the host, we’re killing it; and individually, we’re micro-sized to the Earth, so I think virus is the most accurate model.
Currently, our collective behavior is parasitic and destructive to the environment, yes. But it’s important to draw a distinction here - a virus or bacterial infection or a parasite are locked into their respective strategies. They cannot help being what they are.
We don’t get that excuse. Humans are the ultimate generalists; we specialized into learning and communicating new behaviors between ourselves. Unlike the flu or a ringworm, we have the capacity to change how we interact with the environment.
You don’t need much of the things they market to you.
Today i learned i don’t need food …
I think OP used literally correctly here.
Then you do not understand what the word “literally” literally means.
While several treatments would work for either, (such as carving up the offending subject with a knife, or sufficient application of chemical or radiative agents), billionaires are an economic problem, not a biologic one.
Then you do not understand what the word “literally” literally means.
Oooo, sick burn!! I don’t know if I’ll recover from that!
My point is that I believe OP was using the word “literally” to mean what it literally means, and not just using it for emphasis as it is so often used these days. They may still be wrong, bit they did not misuse the word.
My point is that I believe OP was using the word “literally” to mean what it literally means,
You can only rationally make that argument if you are claiming that “society” is a biological organism, like an amoeba or a babboon, presumably evolved from other common ancestors of all life on earth. When you can tell me the scientific name of this organism, and what organs have been affected by tumors, we can start talking about the literality of the “cancer” OP referred to.
As the underlying logic was metaphorical, “literally” was used as figurative hyperbole, not literality.
You are refuting an argument that I did not make.
I am refuting the argument that would need to be made in order to support your position. I clearly specified that necessity in my refutation. “Cancer” and “billionaire” would have to be synonymous, not analogous, for “literal” to have been used correctly.
What type of cancer are billionaires? Carcinomas are cancers of epithelial tissue, but “society” does not have epithelial tissue. Sarcomas are cancers of musculoskeletal and connective tissues, but “society” does not have bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. Myelomas are cancers of the plasma cells in bone marrow, but again, “society” doesn’t have bones. Leukemias are cancers of the various blood cells, but society doesn’t have “blood”. Lymphomas are cancers of the lymphatic system, but society doesn’t have one of those either.
In fact, “society” does not have biological tissues or organs that could even become literally cancerous. (Members of society do, indeed, have these various organs and tissues, but no member of society has been diagnosed with a “Bezosma” or “Muskaemia”.)
“Billionaires are cancer” is a metaphor. “Billionaires are literally cancer” is simply a false statement, unless “literally” was used, incorrectly, as hyperbole.
“Billionaires are literally cancer” is simply a false statement, unless “literally” was used, incorrectly, as hyperbole.
That is my point. Literally can be used correctly in a statement that is not correct, and my reading of the original post is that was OP’s intention. They did not misuse the word “literally.”
I’m not debating the meaning of the word cancer.
So, billionaires are not “literally” cancer, but “billionaires are literally cancer” is supposedly a correct use of “literally”?
“Literally” was not correctly used in this sentence. As used in the sentence, “literally” is synonymous with “figuratively”, which is an incorrect useage of “literally”.
“Billionaires are literally cancer” is false specifically because “literally” does not mean “figuratively”.
Correct. But that is not what OP said. Read it again and I think you will see that OP is saying that “Billionaires are cancer” is not a figurative statement at all, but a literal one. You can disagree with them (I do, btw), but they have not misused the word “literally.”
“Billionaires are literally cancer” is false specifically because “literally” does not mean “figuratively”.
Correct. But that is not what OP said. Read it again and I think you will see that OP is saying that “Billionaires are cancer” is not a figurative statement at all, but a literal one. You can disagree with them (I do, btw), but they have not misused the word “literally.”
“Billionaires are literally cancer” is false specifically because “literally” does not mean “figuratively”.
Correct. But that is not what OP said. Read it again and I think you will see that OP is saying that “Billionaires are cancer” is not a figurative statement at all, but a literal one. You can disagree with them (I do, btw), but they have not misused the word “literally.”
“Billionaires are literally cancer” is false specifically because “literally” does not mean “figuratively”.
Correct. But that is not what OP said. Read it again and I think you will see that OP is saying that “Billionaires are cancer” is not a figurative statement at all, but a literal one. You can disagree with them (I do, btw), but they have not misused the word “literally.”
I think you will see that OP is saying that “Billionaires are cancer” is not a figurative statement at all, but a literal one.
It is a metaphorical statement rather than a simile, but both metaphors and similes are figurative, not literal.
You are refuting an argument that I did not make.
I enjoy this type of debate, but this one doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere. I’m moving on. Thank you, sincerely.
The solution is radiation chemo therapy.
Drop the nukes.
Jail sentences,
countless are dead due to billionaire greed. they are directly responsible.
life sentences for billionaires
If I have a company, where I intentionally make choices that kill my costumers, that would make me liable for manslaughter, me and anyone involved in the deaths. why healthcare billionaires are not liable?
same with every other billionaire who profits from human suffering and deaths.
No, actually, it doesn’t make you liable for manslaughter. It probably doesn’t even rise to the level of civil liability for wrongful death. They are compliant with the law, and they make sure of that by having their lawyers write the laws. The “anyone involved in the deaths” includes the deceased themselves, who is determined to bear primary responsibility.
We can override the laws they are writing (Guillotine Party) or we can suspend the laws to hold them accountable (guillotine party). But jailing them without a conviction just isn’t feasible.
fuck the law. those laws let them off the hook because they bribed (lobby) to have those laws.
Just because a mass murder is legal does not mean it has to go unpunished.
The holocaust was 100% legal, and no one has ever complained that it is unfair to prosecute nazis for not breaking the law.
when the law is so unfair, you cannot use the law as an argument.
I don’t think you’re understanding me. I’ll see if I can rephrase.
There is no “jail them for life” option without the law. If you try to imprison them without the law, the law will just come in and free them. You’re suggesting a middle option that is simply not feasible.
I’m asking you to choose between:
“Guillotine Party”, a political party, much like the Tea Party, dedicated to stripping the problem-class of their excessive political power, perhaps by creating laws to justify their permanent imprisonment. We politically, figuratively decapitate them. This approach can (theoretically) jail them for life, by creating the law that would allow it to happen.
“guillotine party”, where we solve the problem-class in much the same way that 18th century France solved their aristocracy problem. We literally decapitate them. This approach will not jail them for life; this approach will execute them for anti-revolutionary activities.
While the specific details will vary wildly, these are the only two general options we have available to us to effect reform: politics, or force.
Not a fan fat shaming that gets bundled in with that but basically. It’s the vice of greed, plain and simple.
Like imagine rolling up to a potluck and just buying the table, leaving naught but a bag of chips for the rest of the party. Even if you can afford it, it’s still a crime against your fellows.
gandalf_der_12te
𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍
radix
cheese_greater
DreamButt
ChickenAndRice
MaggiWuerze
☂️-
tate
Rivalarrival
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 
ComradeSharkfucker
Fuckfuckmyfuckingass
grrgyle
Possibly linux