That's true of all opinions, not just "good" ones. Even "bad" opinions (i.e. X pairing is stupid) are usually built on beliefs.
"So what if I told you that in my opinion the world is actually made of cake. Is that opinion still justified because I simply belief that's what the world is?"
"Justified" is an oft-misused word when it comes to opinion. To be sure, the facts and the general consensus tell us that the world is not made of cake. But if that's your opinion, you're entitled to have it. You even have the right to share your opinion, so long as it isn't hurting anyone.
"I think what Rouge2t7 is trying to say, when you're making a crack pairing that isn't canon could you kindly explain how this pairing came to be?"
That's what the stamp says; however, the artist comments say, "I hate seeing idiots make stupid pairings and wonder why people say its a bad pairing." And that, aside from being a needlessly inflammatory statement, is open to quite a bit of debate. What's stupid for one person may make perfect sense for another, and vice versa. Where's the almighty art god who gets to say, "I declare this pairing to be stupid; thou shalt not ship these characters" or "I declare this to be a sensible pairing; be fruitful and multiply"? There isn't one. So, yes, rating movies/books/fiction IS a very subjective thing, despite their basis in theme. Movies are not just BAD or GOOD. One of my favorite movies of all time is "Medicine Man", which has a 24% on Rotten Tomatoes. Conversely, I find "Pulp Fiction" to be one of the most god-awful movies in the history of cinema, despite the fact that critics adore it. To me, Medicine Man is good, and Pulp Fiction is bad. For most, it's the other way around. Does that mean I'm wrong or "stupid" for thinking the way I do about them?
"You can claim a twisted relationship is done 'good' but it doesn't mean it's GOOD to read or look at."
Again, that depends on who is reading it. Have you ever actually read A Streetcar Named Desire, the work that I mentioned in my previous comment? It involves a very twisted relationship. And while I don't condone the abusive nature for it, the tension created by it makes a very compelling read (which you may call "neutral" rather than "good", but since most people choose what to read based on how interesting it is, I would beg to differ). This brings me back to my original point: what is "good"? "Good" can mean nice, noble, tasty, fun, interesting, relaxing, enjoyable, exhilirating... I could go on and on with words that cover thousands of different aspects of "good".
"Cuteness isn't always a SURE FIRE WAY for a good relationship. It's more then that."
Yeah, that's kind of exactly my point. The artist here seems to be of the mindset that if it's not cute, it's not a good relationship. At least that's the attitude the artist comments seem to portray - if that's wrong, then they should be revised; good artists also take responsibility for possible misinterpretations of their work.
- Good often means: Positive, great standard's and something that many people can enjoy. There is no need to beat down on the word as if it's a nazi way of thinking because people want good things.You seem to have this very 'Grey' way of thinking like 'WHAT IS GOOD AND BAD' and I apologise to say not everything is from a grey stand point. Grey is like a kid stealing medicene to help his sick mother. There's GOOD and BAD in this situation.But what if some vandals beat up an old lady to get weed? is that not BAD?Just the simple fact that you question something so simple makes me wonder why I'm even pulling up the dictionary. You question what's good or bad yet we have morals and quality to up keep.I'm sorry but if there is a movie that not many people like but you like, it doesn't mean it's a good movie. It just means you like bad movies, which ISN'T BAD. Not at all. But what YOU have got to understand is that Bad and Good to exist in even subjective topic's. Other wise neutral wouldn't exist. Neutral is a mix of GOOD AND BAD.I am not trying to be rude but I read this and wondered if you're a sudo-intellectual. You're trying to sound to smart for something so simple.
Art is. Is that black-and-white enough for you? That's how art works. Art is communication. It is the artist saying "here's the way I see it." The artist doesn't OWE an explanation for why they see it a certain way.
"Just the simple fact that you question something so simple makes me wonder why I'm even pulling up the dictionary."
That sounds to me like, "Ooh, I think you're hitting too close to home, so I'll just insult you rather than actually addressing the point." And you call me the pseudo-intellectual. See, here's the thing. There's more to words than mere dictionary definitions. Words are truly defined by their usage. But since you're going to throw books at me, here's one for you to to try: a thesaurus. Here's "good," according to Roget's:
#52 Completeness: Adj. full, filled, replete, ample, good, plump, plenary, pleny, pregnant, flush, round.
#394 Savoriness: Adj. palatable, toothsome, toothy, gusty, sapid, good, good to eat, nice, agreeable, likable, pleasing.
#494 Truth: Adj. good, meritorious, just, sufficient -- bona fide, good, rightful, veridical, straight, sure-enough, sincere, honest, honest-to-God, genuine, authentic, real, natural, native, legitimate.
#512 Omen: Adj. propitious, favorable, favoring, good.
#618 Good: Nn. good, welfare, well-being -- meet, fit, proper, good, as it should be, as it ought to be -- splendid, capital, elegant, clever, braw, famous, royal, good, noble, excellent, gallows, bueno, bon, bonzer, bonny, fine, nice, goodly.
#639 Sufficiency: Adj. good, good enough, plenty good enough.
#646 Expedience: Adj. due, right, proper, decorous, nice, decent, good, worthy, appropriate, meet, fit, fitten, fitting, befitting, becoming, seemly, likely, congruous, suitable, sortable, acceptable, feasible, seasonable, opportune.
#648 Goodness: Nn. good, welfare, well-being -- splendid, capital, elegant, clever, braw, famous, royal, good, noble, excellent, gallows, bueno, bon, bonzer, bonny, fine, nice, goodly.
#656 Salubrity: Adj. salubrious, salutary, wholesome, healthful, healthy, beneficial, benign, good, good for.
#801 Treasurer: Adj. solid, good, reliable, responsible, sound as a dollar, solvent, sound, substantial.
#802 Treasury: Adj. substantial, solid, good, reliable, responsible, sound as a dollar, solvent, sound.
#829 Pleasurableness: Adj. genial, cordial, amiable, good, goodly, nice, fine.
#906 Benevolence: Adj. good, nice, boon -- good, nicely, well.
#922 Right: Adj. right and proper, as it should be, as it ought to be, according to Hoyle, proper, correct, decorous, good, nice, decent, seemly, due.
#944 Virtue: Adj. virtuous, good, moral.
#987 Piety: Adj. righteous, holy, good.
You're trying to make good a simple matter of "this is good" and "this is not", and the world just doesn't work that way, particularly when it comes to art and literature. While it may be true that some things are just universally accepted as good or bad, art is not one of those things because it is so individualized.
"I'm sorry but if there is a movie that not many people like but you like, it doesn't mean it's a good movie. It just means you like bad movies."
And who gets to decide it's a bad movie? You? Is it bad because nobody likes it? Is that how we measure bad - not many people like it, so it's bad? Is the kid chosen last on the playground bad because nobody likes him? And why are some movies "good"? Because they're popular? Because critics like them?
"But what YOU have got to understand is that Bad and Good to exist in even subjective topic's. Other wise neutral wouldn't exist. Neutral is a mix of GOOD AND BAD."
No, neutral means the exact opposite. Neutral isn't a mix of good and bad, it is neither good nor bad. Since you like dictionaries, here's another one for you. According to Oxford, neutral is defined as "having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features" and "not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial". It is entirely possible for good, bad, and neutral to exist in subjective topics. I never said that there's no such thing as good and bad; I said that for some things, particularly subjective topics like art, good and bad are a matter of individual taste, not one person's arbitrary definitions of it. (And I wasn't going to say anything about this, but since you see fit to resort to ad-hominem statements, you should know that apostrophes are only used to indicate possession, and the correct spelling is "pseudo-intellectual").
Also, if you're going to say something you know to be rude, there's no need to preface it with "not trying to be rude, but...". Just say what you're going to say and be willing to face the reply. I respect that much more.