For a lot of human history this was simply not the case. I am not saying that this level of social cohesion is better or worse for mental health, but you can't use your own cultural viewpoints to debunk the previous commenter's claim. You have this view because you have been conditioned to have it in our current society.
The fundamental argument between jackson1442, Dalewyn, and giraffe_lady is this argument as to whether a "good neighbor" can exist if a community does not exist. Dalewyn is saying "yes", jackson1442 and giraffe_lady are saying "no".
You're stating that "community" encompasses both. And by stating that you're effectively ignoring the definition of the term that giraffe_lady and jackson1442 are using. If ignoring this distinction was not your intent, then your original comment needed to be more verbose.
I used the same pattern to further weaken it to "X is not A of type B"
They've said it's not 'A.' My statement was COMPATIBLE in fact with their original statement being true, it just leaves open the door that it may not be. It's certainly possible something could be both not a community and not the community they envision, and in fact if it weren't a community it couldn't possibly be the one they envision. Nothing I said necessarily conflicts with their definition.
Given that the comment I responded to and my comment used very similar patterns with mine only weakening the 'not' possibilities I'm really struggling to understand why my comment suddenly crossed the line to you. It didn't even assert the previous comment or definition was incorrect.
1) I've seen the "arguments over definitions don't add to HN" morale stated here before and decided to try it out when it seemed pertinent.
2) I wasn't too on board with giraffe_lady either, and yours was just the figurative last straw. Also if I'm going to try to interject in what I think is a non-productive back and forth I figured I'd do so at the end of the chain, not with multiple comments throughout the chain.
"Good neighbor" and "taking care of your neighbor" are simply figures of speech. If someone is taking them to literally mean a neighbor and subsequently literally a neighborhood, they are demonstrating a gross lack of understanding in the subject matter.
Being a "good neighbor" means being a man of good character. What is a man of good character? Treating others with kindness and professionalism, respecting property and privacy, reciprocating generosity and respect, and protecting the weak and helping those truly in need. None of this is mutually exclusive with individualism.
"Taking care of your neighbor" means to proactively involve yourself in the lives of others, which may or may not be appreciated depending on the recipient (anecdata: I know many people who don't) and is either way none of your business to initiate.
I am making this distinction between "a good neighbor" and "taking care of your neighbor" in my original comment because the two are very different things, and the commenter I replied to was conflating the latter with the former.
It often means this given the type of person most likely to "take care of their neighbor", but it doesn't have to. Rare people can make it known that they are willing to help with anything a neighbor may ask for help with without actively butting in. It's difficult to do without making it seem like you're sincere and not just saying a platitude, but I am sure that it can be done, and has been done.
I'm neither community or neighbor oriented, so I don't have a horse in this race.(1) I just thought I'd comment on this particular statement of yours.
(1) - To the extent I butted into the conversation with my comment toward notch898a it was mostly an experiment.
Taking care of a neighbor is none of my business because other peoples' lives are none of my business.
Being a good neighbor and taking care of a neighbor are two very different things.