🚀 go-pugleaf

I wrote:
>>In which case individuals are not fundamental either.  "Individuals
>>are made up cells.  You can have a cell without an individual (amoeba)
>>but you can't have an individual without cells."

In article <dformosa.847959048@lancelot.st.nepean.uws.edu.au>,
>However if you remove cells from my body thay will quickly die (execpt 
>spurm cells wich are potantail indviguals).  But if I decide to live
>outside a comminaty I can.

So what?  To continue my parody, your constinuent atoms won't die if they 
are separated.  Also, while you can separaate yourself from society,
you were still *created* through a long process of socialisation.

>>It always amazes me how reductionist biologists (who want to reduce
>>all of ecology, embryology, and evolution to molecular genetics)
>
>Without at least a ruff knolige of molecular genetics all these fealds 
>meaning less.

Really?  That's about as sensible as saying that no historian can do any
work without a rough knowledge of physics.

>>States and communities, like them or not, are real entities 

>Thay are entites yes, thay are most likely an orginisum as well but more
>like how an ant-hill or a bees nest is an orginisum.  

No, they are *not* like organisms, "social insects" or otherwise.  
Organicist metaphors are generally deprecated in the social sciences.

>States and commuites
>are abstract entites,  no-one can debate where my body stops and yours
>begins (well I'm not going to get that personal with you yet) but where
>staes and commintes begin and end is the subject of constent debait.

Really?  I would argue that at least the *physical* boundaries of
states are (in most cases) far better defined than the boundaries of a
human being.  Exactly when does your urine cease being part of you?  If
you get a pin put in your leg in an operation, does it become part of
you?

Danny.