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 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.
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”?
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”.
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.”
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.
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.
Sorry for the multiple replies btw. My app is acting weird.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator