As children, when we say we like something, we're also declaring it to be good. Conversely, what we don't like is bad. Use the phrase "good for you" trying to convince a child under a certain age that a food they don't like is healthy, and they're likely to respond "no, it's not." The child isn't arguing the point that the food is healthy, but simply restating her preferences because the modifier "for you" doesn't register.
As we mature we begin to understand distinctions between absolute descriptors like "good" and conditional ones like "good for you." Some things do not change, however. When we say we like vanilla ice cream we will always mean "it's good," because the gustatory experience is completely sensual and completely subjective.
In other areas we learn there are different ways of seeing most things. Objective and subjective perception, for example, which as children we conflated into like= good and dislike=bad, are very different. Most experiences and encounters in life can be objectively measured and evaluated, either by intrinsic qualities, such as a work of art, or by social and/or cultural norms, by which we define relationships and behaviors.
As adults we are able to discern those distinctions. We comprehend that it is entirely possible to dislike something that can be shown logically to be intrinsically good, and we can like something that is flawed. We have learned to apply reason. We say we like/dislike something for aspects of its existence. Our reasoning is no longer "I like that and therefore it's good," but "I like that for these reasons . . ."
There are some people whose development never quite got to the point of making the subjective/objective distinction, who remain locked into the pattern of things they like being good and things they don't like being bad. If this is sounding familiar it's because many of those people are afflicted with a mental condition I discussed in my April 17 post, Narcissism.
The condition was named for the mythological Greek youth Narcissus, who lay for so long gazing into a pond admiring his own reflection that he took root and turned into the flower named after him.
We are burdened with a president who is afflicted with an extreme case of the condition. It is evident in a number of ways, including his speech habits. Select almost any of his public utterances at random and you will find the like=good, dislike=bad equations.
The concerning thing about this is not the grammar; it's the fact that these are totally subjective expressions. It's true that he does occasionally use the first person plural, but it's unclear whether he's referring to a team or using it in the royal sense.
The point is that the unpresident frequently speaks in the fashion of a monarch--or a tyrant. He is prone to unilateral action and should be watched closely for evidence of instability.
---Diogenes, 4/24/20
U.S. Constitution
The bedrock of the United States of America