NoSpiritAnimal

No, my point with “functionally” is that it can be killed.

Biological immortality is a very specific concept indicating an absence of aging and the absence of an increase in expected mortality along with age.

I just mean that something can still eat it. This is an easy concept to understand if you’re not focused on correcting people needlessly.

This is what I mean by functionally.

There is a functional difference between being pedantic about the word “functionally” and supplying relevant information.

My comment indicates that the animal can still die, your comment indicates it doesn’t age.

Do you see the meaningless distinction?

No, I meant functionally. As in practically. For all intents and purposes. As in under normal conditions.

It’s like if I said “You meant ‘searching for’ and not ‘looking for’”, when looking indicates visual searching.

In other words it’s a meaningless distinction in the usage and I would look like a real dickhead pedant if I insisted you use another word.

There is a species of jellyfish which is functionally immortal. When they get too old they simply turn into children again and re-age.

Edit: I’m not saying it’s not biologically immortal, I’m saying functionally immortal because I’m indicating that it can still be killed.

Saying something doesn’t experience aging is not the same as insisting it cannot die.

2+2=4 is not less correct because 2x2 also equals 4.