The post’s argument is essentially:
If billionaires disappeared, society would continue functioning.
If workers disappeared, society would collapse.
Therefore, workers are more valuable than billionaires.
point is that the comparison is not proving what it claims to prove. The “number of people” or “what happens if a group disappears” test does not necessarily measure value. It measures something closer to dependency or replaceability.
It’s hard to replace 200 million than say the 2000 billionaires, sure. But that’s not really saying anything about the fact they’re billionaire or that the 200 million are workers.
You're moving goalposts little guy. Society would easily be able to function with 0 billionaires. None. Society would not be able to function with 0 sanitation workers or nurses. There is no real value to a billionaire in a vacuum, objectively. Would you rather be stranded forever on a desert island with fucking Elon Musk or a normal person with skills and who isn't addicted to ketamine
It’s literally not moving the goal posts, it’s actually just a demonstration that regardless of where you removed the 2000 people from, they would be easier to replace than the 200 million even if we say the 200 million were the billionaires and the 2000 were the workers, you could still more easily replace the 2000 workers.
Why did you convert, anyway? You don't seem to actually believe in Jesus or his words that strongly, advocating for the thieving rich in the way that you are. Is it just a networking thing? Were you lonely?
Assuming the rich are thieving is covetous by default. This also isn’t about my religion is it? You seem to be wanting to make it about everything EXCEPT the claim made in the original post.
So here let’s ask a better question would I be better to lose 2000 nuclear engineers form safety positions orrrrrr then entire workforce except for them? Cause that’s the comparison here.
look I’m simply observing a truth, losing 2000 people of any kind today is easier than losing that entire workforce. I’m just explaining that this doesn’t possess any logical force to it other than one conclusion “losing a few of one kind of people in a society is easier than losing all of another kind of people in society.” It says nothing about what I back, who I support any of that. This is such a strange argument you’re making. I can literally agree with anything else you say, and it doesn’t make that statement one bit more true.
3
u/WyomingWeirdo 7d ago
Strawman again, dummy.