I'm sorry, but I'm too stuck on the importance of nuance to let this one slide. You first said that a person who doesn't love this country should leave it. Then you said they should leave it as a matter of conscience. Now you're saying they might be happier elsewhere. I see different meanings in all three statements.
In the beginning... <gg>
You joined in after I said "I wasn't suggesting that we make any laws penalizing those who don't love this country. I was suggesting that, as a matter of conscience, if you can't love your country, you should find another." Followed by " Anyway, that's my "context" for asserting that folks who don't love this country should find one that they can love."
You're right. I didn't say anything about conscience until I had to clarify for Dale that my libertarian self wasn't talking about making laws to ban not loving the country. And I didn't say anything about happiness until you interpreted it as "love it or leave it," which you did say, BTW, so I had to clarify.
While we share a fondness for nuance, at the time of my original statement the discussion was about the distinction between love and pride. There was no apparent need to be so nuanced about what the "should" in "should find one that they can love" meant. Dale inferred that it meant we should make a law, but it didn't. You inferred that it meant "love it or leave it," but it didn't. That's not an unreasonable inference, but not what I had in mind. It meant that it would be constructive to seek out a better match.
No, I wasn't clear in the beginning about what "should" meant and people had different reactions to it. But at the time there was no apparent need to be more specific about that wording as long as I was being clear about love vs. pride, which was the topic on the table.
There is nothing about "should find one that they can love" that contradicts what I've said since. I've simply fleshed out the "should," a word open to interpretation, as questions have been raised.
(Actually, "happy" isn't a word I usually use. I don't know where that came from and am to lazy to look. "Happy" is not really what I mean either. I say that pre-emptively in case one wants to fault my nuance. <g>) |
