• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    You’re looking for particular circumstances that mitigate or otherwise detrimentally affect the inherent value of certain goods, though your scenarios depend on those goods having inherent value in the first place.

    Clothing has inherent value for people.

    Containers have inherent value.

    Shoes, any number of material goods have inherent value.

    Currencies do not.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I don’t think you understand what inherent means.

      If something does not always have value in every circumstance, the value is not inherent.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        In the context that we’re using the phrase and have even explicitly stated, “…to people”, these material goods…and food(that’s use your craziest argument so far) have inherent value.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Do you think I’m talking about inherent value to dogs and cats?

          I’m going to assume you are trolling and kick myself for falling for it.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            No, that’s my point? Currencies do not have an inherent value to people, only societal, while material goods have inherent value to people while you’re pretending they don’t while you struggle against a definition.

            Struggle!