Text 7321, 75 rader
Skriven 2006-08-30 21:16:00 av Robert E Starr JR (7818.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Rob Perkins to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <4lmdvqF2lnvkU1@individual.net>
@REPLY: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0608301545170.17243@eclipse.wustl.edu>
Paul Hahn wrote:

> Er, no.  Why do you say that?  Just as you can agree with John on that
> and disagree with him about the use of the word "traitor", I can agree
> with the both of you on Harris, and agree with John and disagree with
> you about "traitor".  What exactly is the problem here?

The problem, of course, is the use of words whose meanings, as defined 
in any decent common usage reference book, and whose etymologies also 
don't show alternate meanings, do not match the actions of the subject 
in question, in this case, Katherine Harris.

Harris is guilty of "ideological fanaticism", for which there is no 
legal punishment. "Treason", on the other hand, carries the punishment 
of death. The difference is important: You can call someone an 
"ideologue" without risking being yourself accused of "slander".

"Treason" is the noun which describes an act which is a betrayal of 
one's country. The person who does that is called a "traitor". Most 
specifically, the word stems from older words related to regicide or 
similar murders of feudal or chattel lords, but I digress.

(This is one of the reasons Ann Coulter is *way* over the top with her 
use of the word to describe loyal-opposition Democrats and liberals.)[2]

Therefore, if you call someone a "traitor", you have accused (this is a 
word which means "blame for a crime") him of "treason", just as 
certainly as the label "thief" belongs to a person who "steals".

My source for this sort of thing is the Oxford American Dictionary. The 
one that came with my iBook, for what that's worth.

If you really want to counter that, then I ask you to come up with 
something and back it up: Teddy Roosevelt made a statement about 
something being "morally treasonable", which is a more complex idea than 
"Harris is a traitor". But think about it: He also misused the word,[1] 
since "treasonable" *means* "punishable as treason", and the claim is 
essentially that those who don't want you criticizing the President must 
therefore die.

So, there are the brass tacks, then: Those who want the countercritics 
to stop telling us all not to hate on the President deserve a traitor's 
death, according to Roosevelt. That's how inflammatory the word is.

Does Harris deserve to die, then, through a State execution, or will it 
suffice that she be defeated in a run for public office? Of course, she 
deserves only to not be elected, because she spouts weird anathema, 
which is not treasonous.

Most specifically, it's not "treason" to call for the establishment of 
Christian values to govern the national Union of States. It's "treason" 
to actually establish it, and I'll wait, thanks, for people to actually 
try it before calling for their execution.

Ergo, Harris is not a traitor. QED.

Rob, who is still looking for those English teachers

[1] I guess that sort of think is OK if Roosevelt is Our Hero, or 
something. I don't recall the context of his statement. Did it have 
something to do with the Alien and Sedition Acts of the early 20th 
Century? If so, he might have been countering something equally as 
nonsensical, and I'll excuse him for it in that context.

[2] This means, of course, that I think there's just about as much class 
in calling Harris a traitor as there is in Coulter doing it to Democrats.
                                                       
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)