Re:Economic Inequality
by throwupper247 on Sunday January 03, 2016 @04:58AM
(#10830094)
>My comment had nothing to do with advocating coffee
My comment did. You can't just reply to the whole comment without considering that part.
No, your comment had to do with redefining value based on whether you think something is good for someone. Like coffee.
Re:Economic Inequality
by throwupper247 on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @02:42PM
(#10845467)
I was trying to tell you that there is a difference between what someone thinks about something's value and the actual value of that thing. It's called subjectivity and objectivity and I feel like your first comment in this thread sounds like you imply that there was no objectivity. The absolut is a special case of relativity: coffee is absolutely disgusting, even if it subjectively seems to taste relatively fine to some, they all agree that it was disgusting at first, hence it's called an aquired taste.
This is the point I was addressing.
>"Let me be pessimistic: coffee doesn't provide a positive value, because it's a drug that get's people addicted however little and subliminal."
Oh, so now it's "positive value". This is something you are imposing on the person based on your own personal opinion about value and coffee.
>"Maybe that is a value to society in general, but it isn't to the individual."
No, it's a value to the individual that chose it. You, being external to the hypothetical individual we are discussing, don't get to make decisions for said individual.
>"That's just sad how much you are missing my point, all the while defending the coffee that your text kind of reads like you had too much before reading."
My comment had nothing to do with advocating coffee.