• 0 Posts
  • 2.21K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle












  • Oh, this one went somewhere, just not anywhere you wanted it to go.

    You can say “billionaires harm society, literally”. That’s a literal statement that is true.

    You can say “billionaires benefit society, literally”. Thats a literal statement that is untrue.

    You can say “billionaires are human, literally”, so long as you are talking about individuals, and not corporate entities.

    You can say “billionaires are steaming piles of shit, figuratively”. They are not literally turds emitting water vapor. That metaphor is quite apt, but not literally true.

    Likewise, they are not masses of mutated cells. That metaphor is also apt, bit is not literally true.

    You can say “teratomas are cancer, literally”. You can’t say “this argument is literal cancer”. It is figurative cancer, not literal.



  • So, billionaires are not “literally” cancer, but “billionaires are literally cancer” is supposedly a correct use of “literally”?

    That is my point. Literally can be used correctly in a statement that is not correct,

    This is generally true, but in this particular sentence, the reason the sentence is false is specifically because of the meaning of “literally”.

    “The sky is literally purple” is a correct use of “literally” in a false statement. This is what you are trying to argue.

    “Billionaires are a cancer” is a correct, figurative statement.

    “Billionaires are literally cancer” is false specifically because “literally” does not mean “figuratively”.




  • 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 “literally” 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.


  • 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.