Do people still have value to you?

People have intrinsic value. Recognising the inherent dignity of every human person can change how we view the world and is the rationale for respect for all peoples, but it doesn’t mean that you have to like them. I enjoy the company of some others for short periods, so yes, people have social value. 

ArchaeC said:

I enjoy the company of some others for short periods, so yes, people have social value. 

So you socially value a proper subset of the human population? I expect most other people that eventually reply to this thread will say something like that, but with different words.

I feel silly now. The proportion of people in general that would plausibly give that answer is so large having made this thread at all feels like an exercise in "redundancy".

purelambdaphi said:

So you socially value a proper subset of the human population

No. I don’t know the difference between a “subset” and a “proper subset”. I call them friends.

I'm inferring the answer to my latest question aside from the one in this reply is, "Yes, the answer remains a 'no'", then.

That confuses me, however. Wen yo say:

ArchaeC said:

I enjoy the company of some others for short periods, so yes, people have social value. 

What do you mean exactly?

Apology accepted.

i don’t want to talk about the population in terms of sets and subsets. Sets and subsets can be misinterpreted here as the terms are used in different ways in different academic specialisms. 

I have already given my answer in two previous posts in plain English.

Right. I apologise.

You can think of the relation between a proper subset and some corresponding set as a one similar to the relation between species and genus, but in a "numerical" respect, then, I imagine.

purelambdaphi said:

So you socially value a proper subset of the human population?

That clarification now in place, is your answer to this question still "no"?

Plain English would be better.

Well, I was using the term in its set-theoretical sense.
In that usage, roughly speaking, a set and a subset can have the same number of elements. A proper subset, however, is explicitly smaller than its correspondent set.

To give a pertinent material example: the set F of people who are also your friends (set "friends", hereafter) is explicitly smaller than the set H of all people in general. Hence, by definition, the relevant set "friends" is a proper subset of the set of all people.

Well, I was using the term in its set-theoretical sense.
In that usage, roughly speaking, a set and a subset can have the same number of elements. A proper subset, however, is explicitly smaller than its correspondent set.

To give a pertinent material example: the set F of people who are also your friends (set "friends", hereafter) is explicitly smaller than the set H of all people in general. Hence, by definition, the relevant set "friends" is a proper subset of the set of all people.

I'm inferring the answer to my latest question aside from the one in this reply is, "Yes, the answer remains a 'no'", then.

That confuses me, however. Wen yo say:

ArchaeC said:

I enjoy the company of some others for short periods, so yes, people have social value. 

What do you mean exactly?

Apology accepted.

i don’t want to talk about the population in terms of sets and subsets. Sets and subsets can be misinterpreted here as the terms are used in different ways in different academic specialisms. 

I have already given my answer in two previous posts in plain English.

Right. I apologise.

You can think of the relation between a proper subset and some corresponding set as a one similar to the relation between species and genus, but in a "numerical" respect, then, I imagine.

purelambdaphi said:

So you socially value a proper subset of the human population?

That clarification now in place, is your answer to this question still "no"?

Plain English would be better.