If You Don't Like It

[Mister Agenda]

Right! It's like when people don't want to say the American Pledge of Allegiance, or want to leave out the 'under God' part. If they don't like it, LEAVE!

Well..I think there's a small difference there because nobody can be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, nor can they be forced to say any specific part of it.

So it's okay to want people to leave the country for not saying if they could be forced to say it?

And it wasn't clear you could be forced to shake hands with your teachers in Switzerland until literally yesterday.

[Mister Agenda]

Right! It's like when people don't want to say the American Pledge of Allegiance, or want to leave out the 'under God' part. If they don't like it, LEAVE!

Actually, they don't have to.  I haven't said the "under god" shit since grammar school.  No one cared.

What does 'having to' have to do with it? It's a TRADITION, Min. If you won't say it, you should LEAVE!!! Why are you even in this country if you won't respect our traditions?

[FatAndFaithless]

Well..I think there's a small difference there because nobody can be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, nor can they be forced to say any specific part of it.

So it's okay to want people to leave the country for not saying if they could be forced to say it?

I can't fathom where you got the notion that I think that's okay.  I'd be on the side of the person who didn't want to say the pledge, because I think forcing someone by law to say the pledge is a ridiculous law to have.  

I also think that forcing children by law to shake hands with their teacher is equally ridiculous, regardless of the fact that the people opposing it are doing so on a religious motivation. This is a rare occasion in which I would actually side with the Muslims in this situation.

[Mister Agenda]

Countless times, I, or people I care about, have been on the other end of the 'If you don't like it, why don't you leave?' argument. It's a shit argument, no matter who it's aimed at.

[FatAndFaithless]

I agree. Literally all I was doing is pointing out that the Pledge of Allegiance analogy doesn't really fit at this time.

[Mister Agenda]

So it's okay to want people to leave the country for not saying if they could be forced to say it?

I can't fathom where you got the notion that I think that's okay.  I'd be on the side of the person who didn't want to say the pledge, because I think forcing someone by law to say the pledge is a ridiculous law to have.  

I also think that forcing children by law to shake hands with their teacher is equally ridiculous, regardless of the fact that the people opposing it are doing so on a religious motivation.  This is a rare occasion in which I would actually side with the Muslims in this situation.

You brought up being forced to say it as though that were relevant. I'm a little mystified that you don't know where I got that from.

[Mister Agenda]

I agree.  Literally all I was doing is pointing out that the Pledge of Allegiance analogy doesn't really fit at this time.

But it would have fit Tuesday?

[Mister Agenda]

Don't mean to bust your chops, you're a good guy, it just seemed to me an odd objection to raise.

[FatAndFaithless]

I agree.  Literally all I was doing is pointing out that the Pledge of Allegiance analogy doesn't really fit at this time.

But it would have fit Tuesday?

Look, I don't know why you're trying to turn this into such a fight?  As of Tuesday, it was unclear whether or not kids could be forced to shake their teachers' hands in Switzerland.  It has been clear for decades now that you cannot force kids to say the Pledge.  So no, it wouldn't have fit Tuesday, and it doesn't fit today because the decision on the pledge is the opposite decision that was made on the hand-shaking.

[Mister Agenda]

But it would have fit Tuesday?

Look, I don't know why you're trying to turn this into such a fight?  As of Tuesday, it was unclear whether or not kids could be forced to shake their teachers' hands in Switzerland.  It has been clear for decades now that you cannot force kids to say the Pledge.  So no, it wouldn't have fit Tuesday, and it doesn't fit today because the decision on the pledge is the opposite decision that was made on the hand-shaking.

I'm having trouble understanding your objection to the analogy. What does whether they're forced to do it have to do with the fitness of the analogy? How is force relevant to whether it is right or wrong to want someone to leave the country they're in for not following its traditions? If analogies had a one-to-one correspondence to the thing they're being compared to, they wouldn't be analogies, so it's reasonable to think you only brought up force because it's important. I'm trying to understand why the force thing is a problem in comparing wanting people to leave the country for not saying the Pledge and wanting them to leave for not being willing to shake hands?

Are you saying that now that the educational authorities have decided to levy a large fine against the boys if they continue to refuse to shake hands with female teachers that the moral equation has changed? The cost of asserting their bodily autonomy certainly has, and if not saying the Pledge were made illegal, I think it would be more important than ever to not say it, as a matter of civil disobedience, and take the consequences.

Looking forward to learning from your response.