How can people confuse good and evil with accuracy?

"1 - 1 = 42 is inaccurate, not evil and rape is evil, not inaccurate..."

Huh?

Rape is not wrong, it's evil. 1-1=42 is wrong.

Because the universe doesn't have an opinion about rape. It doesn't have an opinion about how evil we are. It doesn't look at a rapist and go "Well, that's not in the script. This person is acting incorrectly."

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Aren't you the same person who was trying to emphasize the notion that the we don't know whether 1+1=2 tomorrow and that it may become 5, adding a notion of temporality to its correctness, in another thread? Yet, you're trying to make a distinction between rape not being wrong, but evil and 1-1=42 is wrong. All you're doing is equivocating on two different aplications of the meaning of an equivocal word. I have never heard of anyone conflating accuracy or its lack thereof with good and evil, respectively, in common parlance. The only sense where such juxtaposition of terms makes sense is when one talks about something being accurate to the conformance of a particular model or standard as being good, and its lack thereof, being bad.

Do you even have a point to your questions?

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

Aren't you the same person who was trying to emphasize the notion that the we don't know whether 1+1=2 tomorrow and that it may become 5, adding a notion of temporality to its correctness, in another thread?
No, I'm the person who emphasized that we don't KNOW 1+1 WON'T equal 42 tomorrow or that gravity won't suddenly disappear tomorrow. You're the person who tried to play it off that I was arguing temporality of numbers or gravity or anything whatsoever.

EDIT: Even though I tried several times to explain the temporality of something is irrelevant to the point.

Yet, you're trying to make a distinction between rape not being wrong, but evil and 1-1=42 is wrong.
Yes. There's no disparity to what I'm saying in that other thread.

All you're doing is equivocating on two different aplications of the meaning of an equivocal word.
Nope.

I have never heard of anyone conflating accuracy or its lack thereof with good and evil, respectively, in common parlance.
I'm very confident you have. Usually when someone says something is "morally wrong" or "morally right" they are conflating accuracy with good and evil.

The only sense where such juxtaposition of terms makes sense is when one talks about something being accurate to the conformance of a particular model or standard as being good, and its lack thereof, being bad.
No, I'm fairly confident that's a different thing.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

No, I'm the person who emphasized that we don't KNOW 1+1 WON'T equal 42 tomorrow or that gravity won't suddenly disappear tomorrow. You're the person who tried to play it off that I was arguing temporality of numbers or gravity or anything whatsoever.
We don't know only because no one can say they know the future. We can't guarantee it because we don't have the power to enforce such causality on the Universe. You're the one who focused on the irrelevant issues of "guarantees" and temporality as if that had anything to do with the point I was making.
Nope.
Yep.
I'm very confident you have. Usually when someone says something is "morally wrong" or "morally right" they are conflating accuracy with good and evil.

No, I'm fairly confident that's a different thing.
. You don't have a clue what someone is talking about.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

We don't know only because no one can say they know the future. We can't guarantee it because we don't have the power to enforce such causality on the Universe. You're the one who focused on the irrelevant issues of "guarantees" and temporality as if that had anything to do with the point I was making. 
No, since temporality was not part of my point (despite your trying to put those words into my mouth) while there being no guarantees was NOT irrelevant since being my counterpoint to your point about "If that were so, we couldn't blablabla" and I said "We CAN'T blablabla."

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

Holy moly dude.

I said:

If this was not the case then "one thing would only follow another only by chance", because there would be no guarantee that every time gasoline was lit it would burn...
First of all, using the word "guarantee" was completely irrelevant to the point that causality as such exists presently. Second of all, you thought you made some kind of counterpoint to the entirety of the post which contained the above quote, or the ones that preceded it, by pointing out that there is no guarantee that the laws of logic and such causality would hold tomorrow, three weeks, three years, three million years or longer from now, etc., which is precisely making it into an issue about temporaility, as if issues about guarantees concerning the future mattered at all to the content concerning purpose/aim/ends, e.g., teleology, that had been discussed.

--

I want a unicorn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MKQbNPkgU

First of all, using the word "guarantee" was completely irrelevant to the point that causality as such exists presently.
No, it was not irrelevant, you used it for a reason. Your argument was one thing would follow another "only by chance" and there'd be no guarantee the same thing would happen as predicted. I countered that there is no such guarantee and you've been trying to make it about temporality ever since.

But the temporality of gasoline or of fire is irrelevant. The "rules" or "laws" of nature is that consequences, the patterns, are predictable, that's what science is all about. That's the causality you're talking about, yes?

My point was that science ASSUMES that causality. That the patterns of reality are solid, for lack of a better term.

Saying that if things were as I say they are (e.g. that "purpose" is just in the human imagination) then "one thing would follow another only by chance" is really saying nothing at all since that's not giving what chance would be and what order would be and how the non-existence of what I'm saying doesn't exist would mean the patterns of reality would not be as they are now.

In short:
I don't see how taking "purpose" out of the equation means now things happen "only by chance" whereas if we leave it in the equation fits the reality we live in.

Second of all, you thought you made some kind of counterpoint to the entirety of the post which contained the above quote, or the ones that preceded it, by pointing out that there is no guarantee that the laws of logic and such causality would hold tomorrow, three weeks, three years, three million years or longer from now, etc., which is precisely making it into an issue about temporaility, as if issues about guarantees concerning the future mattered at all to the content concerning purpose/aim/ends, e.g., teleology, that had been discussed.And there you go again, trying to make it about temporality even though I keep explaining how it isn't.

Temporality is about past, present and future. Not about the universe simply tossing out the rulebook without warning or cause and unraveling into chaos.

In other words:
Temporality is about things changing over time. Not that we don't know everything about how time and space and everything else works.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".