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.

I'm lost.

I'm angry.

And I'm armed.

They said anti-hero.

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.

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.

You hold the pencil and twirl the cassette around on it.

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.

There is no law providing for such a sentence, so what you are talking about is either "make billionaireism illegal" or "extrajudicial punishment". In the case of the former, we need a Guillotine Party to take over the DNC much like the Tea Party took over the GOP. Or, we need a guillotine party, French Revolution style, to resolve the problem-class at its source.

Freshwater fish can still have mercury. Even farmed fish can have mercury contamination, if their feed is sourced from the wild.

If you won't eat fish though that sounds more like a you problem.

Nah, I'm perfectly happy with my hot dogs. You're the one eating broken thermometers and fluorescent lights.

Fish are carnivorous, and mercury is bioaccumulative. So, larger fish tend to have higher concentrations than smaller fish, but pretty much all fish have some level of mercury. There is no "safe" concentration.

But the real problem with your scenario is that I'd prefer hunger pangs over fish, grilled or otherwise.

Parent comment discussed "anxiety", a condition which has its own associated morbidity and mortality, and should also be considered when evaluating these studies.

Mercury.

1000 people show up to the annual picnic. If we remove hot dogs from the market, and dont serve them at our picnic, or any picnic, ever, 40 of those 1000 people are going to get colorectal cancer.

If we do serve hot dogs at our picnic (and every other picnic), 43 people are going to get colorectal cancer at some point in their lives.

Pass the mustard.

Mariokart tournament?

#BlueShell

The only party worth talking about is the Guillotine Party.

Also, they do respond to outside stimuli, otherwise they’d be completely inert.

Do they actually respond? Or is it the external stimuli responding to them?

I would pose that same question to you. Why do you feel it is important for the sun to come up at 3:30 in the morning? Why would you impose that absurdity on anyone?

My pajamas:

Over here (NL) our default timezone is already one hour too early,

Then you have a completely different, localized problem, and you should fix that locally. The solution you are advocating is completely unsuitable outside of that localized area. You should change your time zone, so you don't have this problem.

The sun moves through the sky at 15 degrees per hour. An ideal timezone is one hour, or 15-degrees wide. Solar noon is at 12:00pm (Winter Time) in the middle of that timezone. At the eastern end, solar noon occurs at 11:30AM, and at the west end, 12:30. If the longest day of summer is 16 hours of daylight, the western end of this timezone experiences sunrise at 4:30AM. But, the center of the timezone experiences sunrise at 4AM, and the eastern end of that same, idealized timezone experiences sunrise is an hour earlier: 3:30AM.

Sunrise at 3:30 in the morning

This is nucking futs. Landscapers and construction workers have to wait for noise ordinances to expire at 8:00AM, 4.5 hours after sunrise, just in time for the day to start getting hot.

For coordinating the activities of daylight-oriented workers with clock-oriented workers/students, winter time is terrible. But summer time is actually very reasonable. In summer time, (with idealized timezones):

• The earliest possible sunrise (on a 16-hour summer day, east end of the time zone) is 4:30AM. (The west end of that timezone has sunrise at a more reasonable 5:30AM)
• The latest possible sunrise (on an 8-hour winter day, west end of the time zone) is 9:30AM (The east end of that timezone experiences that sunrise at a more reasonable 8:30AM)
• Earliest possible sunset is 4:30PM (east end of the zone, 8-hour winter day; with the west end experiencing it at 5:30PM)
• Latest possible sunset is 9:30PM (west end of the zone, 16-hour summer day; the east end experiences that same sunset at 8:30PM)

None of these extremes are ideal, but none of them are completely ridiculous either. Year-round Summer time is simply the best alternative to the biannual time change.

Nah, it would be far less disruptive to stick with the time we already use for 3/4 of the year. Winter time is the problem.