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

    Pants have value in any climate.

    Exposure is a problem in any climate.

    Dehydration, sunburns, bug bites, there are plenty of reasons you want clothing.

    Clothing has inherent value whatever climate you’re in.

    Food does have inherent value.

    Food is necessary to keep the human body, and the body of many other species, alive.

    The excess of food for a given population may have less value, but you can trade that excess, or harvest or store it; the food itself still has inherent value to humans and other organisms that eat food.

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

    The fact that certain material goods have inherent value is not flawed, but you can keep trying.

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

      Pants have value in any climate.

      Pants can have value, they do not have inherent value.

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

      I am pointing out that there are exceptions to the assumption that there is inherent value to show that material goods do not have inherent value. That is the opposite of ‘depending on them having inherent value’.

      • 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!