There are two definitions to good. There's the definition of good referring to morality, such as good vs. evil, and there's the definition of good referring to objective claims, such as good vs. bad.
Neither of these definitions are similar to or mean "like" and it's subjective variants. When you say "something is good," you're not saying "I like something."
So why is there such a prevalent use of the word "good" being interchangeable with "like" in our society?
you are autistic if you think language is defined by dictionaries instead of usage
also nice b8 fgt
>>7576452
Why use the word "Good," something that's been useful for defining positive moral and objective qualities, to describe something you like but have little knowledge of, when you could simply use the word "like" because the predetermined definition is much different and actually applies to your stance?
Saying "I like thing" versus "thing is good" will prevent people from being pointlessly debated over opinions. It's standoffish.
>>7576460
Because the good in both senses of the word is what is desirable
Sperging over language has been the death knell for real philosophy
>>7576468
But "like" simply refers to something you, yourself, find enjoyable, satisfactory, or agreeable (and not necessarily agreed upon.)
That's not even close to "good," something that is good would outright benefit humanity.
>>7576460
>something that's been useful for defining positive
prescriptivism is literally autism: linguistic editions
fuck off
>>7576475
>That's not even close to "good,"
Except that's what it means when it means that. Woah, language, so hard, right?
>>7576479
The fuck is wrong with prescriptivism? Do you seriously think that african american vernacular english is just as useful for conveying english than formal english? You could argue that's a strawman argument, but that's exactly what you're fucking saying.
Get the fuck out of here you stupid nigger.
>>7576490
Words are meaningless and society gives them meaning. If we allow our words to devolve back into meaninglessness, then humans would go extinct because it'd be impossible to communicate effectively. This is easy, basic shit that a 1st grader could understand.
>>7576491
>asspained /pol/ butthurt over muh language
>bringing up strawmen arguments as if it matters
>"conveying english"
pathetic
>>7576497
Well I guess I'm right, then. This was fun.
>>7576496
>If we allow our words to devolve back into meaninglessness
hahahaha
>>7576496
Who gives a shit about words nigga goddamn just live your live hurr durr what does it mean when I say I'm in pain does it mean the same thing you mean when you're in pain hurr durr nothing can be communicated hurr durr everything is on the brink of collapsing into incomprehensibility if we don't have exact definitions for everything hurr durr herpa derpa
Boring ass sperg shit
>>7576508
If our words have no meaning then nobody would be able to read literature. Therefore, if you think it's okay for langauge to devolve, you hate /lit/.
>>7576516
wew lad
>>7576528
and they didn't have literature. So go to some non /lit/ board if you hate words so much.
>>7576520
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/humor/marktwain.cfm
You hate progress
>>7576540
But this is mark twain making fun of you faggots for allowing the english language to degenerate.
>>7576520
you realize no one likes /lit/, least of all people on /lit/ right
>>7576561
I think that is a very simplistic interpretation of his intent
