Writing "beng" rather than "being" is not a syntactical error. As with biology, you expose your ignorance when you delve into areas outside that pathetically small body of knowledge whichyou claim to command.
Your cultural "plain English" is being pressuposed as the meta-language, "beng" (suggested by the object) would be a syntax error of any sentence in this case.
It appears that you continue to appeal to "social science", in this case the subsets of linguistic
grammar, which is a system of no truth value, it is in fact a deviation of formal systems, which is not a theoretical linguistic, these syntax or semantic concepts are axiomatic derrivations of proof.
Also, "typographical error" is your
assumption (it is not linguistic subset), and is, by definition, subjected to syntax error, however why is a syntax error valid in the meaning
It is you that suggested my language is erroneous, you appear to have beliefs that there OUGHT TO be a correct way for natural language
, this is self refuting, being that it is open to interpretation, just like morality.
Furthermore, your abductions are invalid inference, logically , EVEN if what you assert is true, though it is your cognitive bias that suggests I have a "small body of knowledge", hence your conclusion NEVER appear to have have entailment.
First, one does not assume that a prokaryote is an extremophile by definition...Second, i did not allege that subjective morality is a trait of all forms of life, i referred only to human communities
Where did I assume this, is this not what you refer to as "straw man" (though definition is actually propositional)?
I already clarified my objective in this case, if it cannot be generalised to life, how is it naturally valid?
How do we quantify morality?
If it is not physical, it has no material quantification, meaning it would entail that the morality you are referring to is immaterial
i responded to that remak. If you had morality in mind, it is no fault of mine that you failed to make that clear. Ants and bees are known as social insects--they form communities to prosper the reproductive function. That is a part of you natural science, even though you may not be bright enough to understand it.
You are red herring.
Again, why is "prosper the reproductive function" good?
Can you define and elaborate good and bad?
Recognizing that humans are a part of the natural world, and that therefore human societies are natural artifacts is not an ontological statement, whether or not you are capable of understanding that. You are simply trying to insist on your jargon-laden babble-speak, and i am not obliged to play your game.
Defining "human society" as cultural artifacts may be valid, however this is not biological, there is no correlation to genetics to suggest how these cultural consequences occur.
Humans genetically flying =/= humans culturally flying
Humans genetically eating =/= humans culturally eating
However, culture may be investigated by "social science", this is the error.
The ontology I am referring is ethical related, the being of "human society" entailing such implications, philosophy of the mind is unsolved, moral values appear to be subjective and immaterial, this also suggests why there does not appear to be a neural correlate to naturally
ressolve "social science".
All you are saying is that think you are able to recast my arguments in your babble-speak terms for the convenience of your arguments. It is not, however, rhetorically valid. When you create inferences where none existed, or restate what i have stated in a manner which no more than convenience for your argument, you have indulged the straw man fallacy.
Are rhetorics epistemically valid?
As for "convenience for your arguement", you have yet to argue why your moral assumptions are obligatory.
You stated that moral values are subjective, why are there obligations to your
interpretation of bad?
Furthermore, you have no evidence that morality is in fact natural, you already stated that it is not physical, therefore your arguement entails supernaturalism.
You are, apparently, unable to respond without resorting to straw men. It also appears that you are unable to express your thought clearly enogh to, for example, make clear that you refer to morality when you don't specify that in your statement. I see no value in continuing to play your jargon word games, because you can't proceed in a rhetorically coherent manner, and you fail completely to understand things outside your narrow, putative area of expertise--such as the distinction between spelling and syntax
You have yet to illustrate the logical fallacy
that satisfies a straw man.
The concept spelling is inconsistent with linguistics, it requires the subsets, such as syntax, you inconsistently deviate from systems of study.
To clarify, spelling is not the "social science" of linguistics.
that there is no such thing as "extremophilic functionality." Organism which are called extremophiles don't suddenly display a "functionality" or a behavior. The reference is not to bahvior or function, but to the ecological niche which the oranixm occupies. Even the term extremophile is highly problematic, as it is subjective. Additonally, it is not known if extremophiles occupy such niches in preference or simply because they can tolerate them.
Your false attribution of contextomy is invalid, I never stated "behaviour" or "suddenly display functionality", it is the state of metabolic function being subjected to the extream environment.
Philia is a property (it is translate "loving" however "plain English" is generally negated) not a subjective values, there are THEORETICAL DEFINITIONS, such as an Alkaliphile survivng caustic conditions of a base and hydroxyl concentration defined at least
PH level of 9.
How can you define "occupy such niches in preference", theoretically?
They are not sentient, your "social science" continues to be of naturally inconsistent applications.
It is certainly ammusing that you follow by stating:
You just want to preen yourself of an illusion of profound knowledge which evaporates on close examination.
This is EXACTLY how I was interpreted your
You might have said you misspelled a word, or that it was a typographical error--instead, you make an hilarious reference to syntax, which suggests that you know no more about the language than you do about natural sciences.
I do hope my refutation clarifies.