How would you set off proving that something is good? Well, first you'd have to define "good," and then you'd have to show that the something meets each of the requirements laid out by the definition. Everyone agree that that's how you'd prove goodness? Good.

So, what's the definition of "good," then? I know! Let's look on Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodness_and_value_theory

Wow. That's a long discussion about the definition of "good." It seems to offer many many definitions for the word "good." Then it goes and lists problems with each of the definitions.

It's pretty obvious from that article that humanity as a whole isn't even sure of what "good" really is.


Let's choose one random definition and then try proving that something meets that definition.
Let "good" = "causing overall net pleasure or happiness"

Now we have another problem. What causes pleasure or happiness? Many things might cause pleasure or happiness. And guess what? It varies for each person! Something that makes one person happy might not make someone else happy at all. Something that makes one person very happy might only make someone else moderately happy.

How do we prove that something is good, when "good" is different for each person? We could try proving that something is good for a certain person, but that's not what we want. We could even try proving that something is good for most of the people, which might seem possible, given enough time. But we're trying to prove that something is good, period, not just good for most people. So how do we do this? Simple answer: we don't.

Then you would have to go with the Sophist idea: Truth is relative. In this case, Good is relative.

The definition changes depending on which person you ask. And that person's answer will depend on which philosophy/religion they believe in.

For example, if we were to take Christianity: Many Christians believe there is a one true God, correct? And that God would embody all that is Good. God defines what is Good, and what is not. Perfection exists in God.

But then a Christian's definition of Good might not be the same as say, an Atheist's or Agnostic's or Buddhist's.

So (like the Sophists) I believe Good is relative.

So that means Sony is good cuz the Walkmen can playback music and bring happiness. And the Japanese are good cuz sexy Japanese girls cause pleasure.

Thank you for your insights, myscrnnm, but information about your privately indulged pleasures is unneeded. As in, I don't want to hear about it.

Nobody does, but myscrnnm continues to give his sexual views to the public anyways.

That will most definitely cause him trouble in the future.

That is cuz there is nothing wrong with sex. You have just been brainwashed by the Christians. But I expect Sigmund Freud would have agreed with me that sexuality is not something to be ashamed of. One day, in my spare time, I shall study human sexuality, and then contribute to the world.

We did not say that there was anything wrong with sex. However, there IS something wrong with talking about sex too much in public.

Hey, it's not as though I speak of it 24/7. It is just an illusion to you that I speak of it very often because you think of it as taboo.

You speak of it almost every day. Or probably every day.

No, at most, every other day. Again, it's just an illusion.

Still, every other day is too much. Even ask Mynck, he'll agree with me.

Of course there isn't. It's critical to reproduction.

I think that most of us would just rather YOU not tell us about your sexual fantasies. It bothers us.

However, I did not speak of my personal sexual fantasies.

You said that Japanese girls cause pleasure. Which is sexual, and most likely a fantasy. And probably yours.

I think they would cause pleasure in lots of people. Remember Hailey once said, "Rachel would make a good trophy wife!"? (not that I am supportive of having trophy wives (using the commonly accepted definition of a trophy wife) but it is merely a third-person statement that I am using as evidence)

As both Hailey and Rachel are very good, very personal friends of mine, I would have to say that Hailey WAS JOKING.

And I agree with Korps Commander's statement about your fantatsies, irvin.

Hey, how do you know my name?

How DO you know his name...?

Because she just said it.

Sorry about that. I changed my post.

lappy says she is a personal friend.

There are many reasons:

But I won't go into those, as they'd probably bore you.

Have we met?

Oh, many a time. I've known you since you were in the fourth grade.

Fine.

1. We were in the same Chinese School class until you skipped.
2. You were in the same boy scout troop as my brother.
3. We once competed together at the Chinese/English translation competition ON THE SAME TEAM
4. People at RJH still tell me things about you.
5. I'm the person Rachel Nakanishi told you to give the pants to at Chinese School. Except you never found me.

Oh, I thought your name was UglyTruth.

That was back in the day.

I see. I also like this new name better, although it is more difficult to type.

Thank you.

Since we are under the topic heading "How to prove that something is good", I will mentiton that my dad is looking into buying a large, flatscreen TV for our family room. Since you seem to be technically inclined, might I ask you what, say, 5-7 good choices you can think of that would be worth my money and a good buy. Budget is around $1000-$2000 for a good TV.

And prove to me, you think these are good choices.

Sony BRAVIA KLV-S32A10 - HD-ready television monitor with PC input. It also features Sony's exclusive WEGA Gate interface system. 32 inches of viewing space and retails for $1,999.99. A medium-sized flat panel television that is marginally cheaper than competing models of the same size.

Sony Grand WEGA KDF-E42A10 - Built in ATSC tuner. Native 16:9 aspect ratio and PC input. Also features WEGA Gate. 42 inches of viewing space at $1,999.99. This television is a good choice because while it is a rear projection television, it has a LCD display and is considerably cheaper than flat panel televisions.

Sony XBR KD-34XBR960N - Full HDTV with built-in ATSC tuner. It also features Sony's exclusive Twin View picture in picture. You can also view files using the Memory Stick Media Enhanced Playback. This is a good choice because it is part of Sony's XBR line of high-end televisions. Being a CRT, it is also considerably cheaper than other XBR televisions. The 34 inch model retails for $1,899.99.

Panasonic TH-42PD50U - An HDTV plasma television with built-in ATSC and NTSC tuners. It also features a 4,000:1 contrast ratio for truer colours. This is a great value because it is a large flat panel television but dramatically cheaper than an LCD television of the same screen size. The 42 inch model retails for $1,999.95.

Panasonic PT-44LCX65 - a diagonal LCD projection HDTV with built-in ATSC and NTSC tuners. The largest screen size in this lineup, since it is a projection television. But it is also much less deeper than conventional projection televisions, cuz it has an LCD screen. The 44 inch model retails for $1,999.95.

Bang & Olufsen BeoVision 4 - Need I say more?

What kind of things?





This is all good to you. Music brings pleasure (not happiness) to you. Others might not appreciate it as much. More likely though, others could have different... sexual fantasies, than you.


I think that goodness is relative, but not truth. I think that when it comes to opinions, there isn't any truth.

Also, notice that myscrnnm only reviewed TV's at the high-end of the pricerange? What about TV's that are near $1000?

She said a large television.

We're not 100% sure ourselves yet if we're going to get a largescreen or a smaller one--it depends on what kinds of deals we can find.

If we're going to blow money it, then my dad says why not just go all out and spend on a larger screen.

But I don't really know... in the end, it all depends on the $$ involved.

I think huge screens are pointless, unless you're into high-end gaming.
I mean, you are going to get the same stuff whether your screen is 72" or 42" (or even smaller, like mine), so why blow the extra money on it unless you have some VALID reason (like alot of 4+ player gaming).

I don't like big screens when it came to gaming.
Back 4 years ago, when I was living in Minnesota (I moved to singapore shortly after), my family had a big screen TV in our apartment (we had just moved there so we didn't have a house yet, it was being built). Then I got an xbox for christmas. I immediatly hooked it up to the TV when I got home and started playing. It gave me a HUGE headache.

I like small (not tiny, but about 2-3 feet wide, 2 feet tall) TVs, I have one in my room. When I was a child, when I went to the YMCA to watch basketball I always watched TV on this tiny TV picking up public access. That TV was too small. But it had a built in VCR, so it was an awesome TV by my standards at the time (I was about 6-7 at the time).

Wrong. Another advantage to large screens is that you can sit very far away from them and still see the words. Whereas with a 17" or so screen you have to be relatively near it. And it has been proven that sitting further away from screens doesn't hurt your vision as much. And another reason pertaining merely to comfort: some movies/games are just meant to be seen on a big screen.

Wouldn't a bigger screen cancel out the effect of sitting further away?

I would think so, because it's emitting that much more radiation...

For one thing, it's not the radiation.
It's the eye strain.

What kind of radiation are you talking about?

Oy. Radiation would just cause blindness, period. Not near-sightedness. Just blindness.

Ever heard of light? LOL, OK, I was wrong .

Ok. Now let's get back to relieving myscrnnm of the belief that he's proved that *something* is good.

I think that the distance and radiation emitted would not vary the same.

Have you been reading anything here at all besides that post? Let me debrief you.

1. Near-sightedness has nothing to do with radiation.
2. Get back on-topic.

I can prove that distance and radiation emitted does vary the same anyways. If you sit x times farther away, then you recieve x² times less radiation due to the inverse square law. But then the length and width of the tele would each also have to be x times longer in order for you do see it at the same resolution. That means that the area of the tv would be x² times larger, meaning that the radiation emitted increases by x². Now, since the radiation emitted increases and the ratio of radiation recieved decreases by the same number, they cancel each other out. Therefore, you recieve no less radiation. Q.E.D.

I was pretty ontopic. Now, anyways, I can prove that Sony is good.

Make sure that you follow the steps outlined in my first post. It's the only logical way to do it.

"Causing net pleasure or happiness"

Sony products can induce happiness in the users, so it must be good.

You said they can induce pleasure. You must prove that they do induce pleasure more than they do pain, and that they do that for everything that ever lived and that ever will.