You admit that this is a totally unproven (and potentially unprovable) conjecture, and the best evidence is 'well, Noam Chomsky (who I think it's kind of overrated actually) believes that this is so,' but later on in this very thread, you're treating it as if it's an axiomatic truth.

There is no one 'true definition' of the word judge that can be taken as a certain, logically useful definition. It's entirely possible (and I would say, probable), that every person involved in this conversation has a different definition of 'to judge' and for some of us, 'to judge' may carry an implicit, heirarchial value, while yours may not. The idea that people have different definitions for the same word is not a hard pill to swallow.

Basically, you're trying to execute logical (or pseudo-logical, I'll get to that in a moment), processes on an undefined variable ('to judge' ), which is impossible.

It seems to me like what's happening here is that you are taking your preconceived notions and definitions, which are no more or less legitimate than anyone else's, and assuming that they embody some axiomatic, logical truth value.

That said, the whole idea that we're engaged in 'logical' or 'rational' debate is kind of absurd. Cognitive science has found so many cognitive biases and quirks of cognition that the idea that we're engaged in some kind of pure, rational discourse is almost impossible. I would say the entire idea of 'Philosophical Reason,' is patently useless, and more of a way to lend artificial weight to one's ideas than it is any useful path to truth. We all may as well be cave men hitting each other with sticks.

Now, formal, mathematical logic is valid (although really only in that it tells us how our brains process information), but we're not doing that here (we're not doing anything even remotely like that here), and to claim otherwise is, to use your word, a fallacy.

Blessings

~ND