Elon Musk's Accusations Against Trump Witness 'False', 'Reckless': Attorney - Newsweek
By: Martha McHardy (Newsweek)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Elon Musk's accusations against a former Donald Trump impeachment witness are "false" and "reckless," a former U.S. attorney has said.
Musk on Wednesday suggested retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified against then President Donald Trump at his first impeachment in 2019, "committed treason" and "will pay" after remarks he made in an October MSNBC interview about the billionaire circulated online this week.
"Vindman is on the payroll of Ukrainian oligarchs and has committed treason against the United States," Musk wrote on his social media platform X. There has been no evidence to suggest that Vindman is on the payroll of Ukrainian oligarchs or has committed treason. Musk added that Vindman "will pay the appropriate penalty" for his actions.
Newsweek has contacted Musk and Vindman for comment by email outside of regular office hours.
Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance hit out at Musk, writing in a Civil Discourse blog post on Saturday: "It's as reckless as it is false."
"Musk seems to feel as bound by the truth as Trump in his public pronouncements, which is to say, not at all," added Vance .
Vindman "is not a traitor," she continued. "And Musk is no prosecutor. He doesn't have the authority to indict anyone, and apparently, he doesn't know much about the law, because given the legal requirements for proving treason, Vindman hasn't come anywhere close to committing the crime."
In a response on X on Wednesday, Vindman said Musk's comments were "false and completely unfounded accusations."
"I served in the military for nearly 22 years and my loyalty is to supporting the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's why I reported presidential corruption when I witnessed an effort to steal an election," he wrote.
"You, Elon, appear to believe you can act with impunity and are attempting to silence your critics. I'm not intimidated," he added.
Treason is a federal crime in the U.S. Article III Section 3 says "[t]reason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
"Treason, both the crime established in the Constitution and the one found in the U.S. criminal code, requires that a defendant act with the specific intent to betray the United States and that to do so, they provide aid and comfort to a country that we are at war with. Ukraine is our ally. No responsible prosecutor would charge Vindman," according to Vance. And "even if an irresponsible one tried to, it wouldn't make it past a judge and jury," she said.
Democratic Virginia Senator Tim Kaine also tore into Musk, writing on X: "Message to Elon Musk—The Vindman family embodies patriotism and public service. You know nothing about either."
In October, Vindman told MSNBC that Russia was using people like Trump to "sow discord."
"Clearly Putin has a type. He likes narcissists and egomaniacs that he knows as a case officer can easily pander to manipulate, to do his dirty work," Vindman said. "Russia has been using different levers—whether that's corruption networks, in this case, it's influencers like Donald Trump, like Elon Musk, to kind of sow discord."
The Wall Street Journal reported in October that Elon Musk has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin since late 2022. Their discussions allegedly covered personal topics, business interests, and geopolitical issues, occasionally involving high-ranking Russian officials like Sergei Kiriyenko, Putin's first deputy chief of staff.
Musk, the chairman of X, and the chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla, appears to be becoming increasingly influential in Trump's inner circle, including reportedly joining the president-elect in a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Trump has also tapped Musk, along with former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, to run the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in order to "dismantle" federal bureaucracy and reduce staffing.
This isn't the first time Vindman and Musk have clashed. In 2022, the two engaged in a heated exchange on social media when Vindman called Musk a "purveyor of hate and division" in response to the X platform owner labeling him "both puppet & puppeteer."
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted.
Tags
Who is online
274 visitors
Lt. Col. Vindman is an American hero deserving of our admiration, gratitude and respect.
Musk has devolved into a reactionary propagandist. He's turned himself into a total freak. What a disgrace.
Musk is dangerous. Him being in Trumps ear is even more dangerous. Elon attempting to influence US, as he wasn't elected anything, is just weird and wrong. Yet he has been.
For those in the Trump camp to call another a traitor, is concerning.
projection, plain and simple, they call almost anybody without a maga hook in their lip that now...
Musk, an autistic "Rasputin".
The new American Oligarchy where the laws and rules are made by the billionaires.
Well, I don't know about "turned into a total freak". I think that is where he started.
You're right.
Does Vindman have a case for libel or is it slander?
If Vindman can make out a case for defamation it would be for libel since the allegedly defamatory statement is in writing. Slander is oral defamation.
Thank-you. I can never remember the definition of those 2. Now I ought to be able to remember.
In America, it has already been established that lies are not only believed but also propagated and contrary to what Goebbels said, they need not be repeated many times to be believed.
Especially if they want to believe the lie already. Sadly, we apparently have tens of millions of gullible idiots ready to believe whatever lie supports their desired version of events, truth and facts be damned.
the republican's decades long war on public education is now paying off ...
Sad, but unfortunately true.
If I were Col Vindman I'd settle my defamation suit out of court for a cool $10 billion.
he'd pay it ...
He probably will.
Rachel Vindman, sent me a PM on Twitter after I announced that my wife had passed, they are good people. I stand by that.
... and just like that - the treason bar snapped back into place.
Treason and traitor are two different words and have different meanings.
They're two sides of the same coin. They are interdependent. That is, to commit treason you have to be a traitor. To be a traitor you have to commit treason. Not sure in what way you think they are different.
maga ...
Not true per codified usage of the English language.
.
Do tell..............
[✘]
Yes, Jim, a treasonous person is called a traitor. The reverse, however, is not necessarily true. According to usage of the English language.
This has been explained and proved numerous times. Why do you insist on equating these terms when that is clearly NOT English semantics?
If you understand what a usage is, in the context of a dictionary, then you would understand that the word traitor does NOT require one commit treason. That is usage 2. Now read usage 1:
[ hint : usages are not "AND" conditions, they are "OR" conditions]
Yes, indeed. How is it possible that a term that is well-defined in dictionaries is so misunderstood? It is indeed a simple concept. What is the problem here?
Maybe because since the use of the word in a colloquial sense is nothing more than opinion and the opinion is often more then a little skewed people are clarifying it is being used as an opinion and not someone that was convicted, the only use of the term traitor that really counts.
Well at least you recognize that usage 1 is indeed correct English. That is a start. Now also note that Merriam-Webster orders its usages based on frequency of use today. Thus the first usage is the one that most English speakers will mean (per Merriam-Webster).
As for opinion, most everything is opinion. Even legal judgments of treason are ultimately opinion. The opinion in a legal sense is the result of a formal process designed to be as objective as possible. But it is still opinion.
And as for only the legal use counts, that is utter bullshit ... a pathetically futile attempt to be right when you are clearly, provably wrong. It is entirely legitimate for someone to come to the conclusion that Trump is a traitor and back that up factually. There is no need for Trump to be convicted of treason. Your (et. al.) argument is factually incorrect. Your argument is utterly stupid. Yet, as with other matters, these kind of absurd, clearly wrong, arguments are offered on a daily basis and the authors of these arguments apparently do not care how ridiculous their arguments make them look.
Actually, it is true. In 2.1.6 you say...
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't provide an explanation as to what way the two usages differ. In actuality, the only way they differ is not in meaning, as they are both the same, but in what sphere of human experience in which they apply. Usage one applies to personal, non-political experiences and usage two refers to the political/legal realm. In both cases, however, one cannot be a traitor without committing treason or vise versa. If you had also looked at the definition of "treason" you would see that this is so.
In giving examples of usage in a sentence it gives...
You did not actually prove " If you understand what a usage is, in the context of a dictionary, then you would understand that the word traitor does NOT require one commit treason ". That is, you don't actually show why treason is not necessarily a part of the definition of traitor. You simply say it isn't necessary.
Reading a friend's diary would certainly be a betrayal of another's trust, and therefore treasonous in the personal sense of usage 1 of traitor. A traitor is what someone is. Treason is what they have done to become a traitor. Without the treason, one can't be a traitor.
Parts of this thread were cleaned up for no value.
Totally wrong! And I am not going to yet again explain how to interpret a dictionary. What amazes me is how some will continue to try to argue a point that is absolutely, definitively proved wrong. Just amazing.
======================================================================
The second definition of "treason" is very close to the first definition of traitor. This ongoing dispute over the meaning of "traitor" is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen on this forum.
Exactly
I agree. It just goes to show that there are quite a few who will argue just to argue well after the point where they have been proven to be dead wrong. Very strange behavior.
Not in the age of The Trumpian Transitions of Treasonous non Fictions, for as a Traitor, Trump examples numerous Depictions, and thus, Dereliction, of a Duty, as Designated via our Constitution, for one who holds our highest office, and it certainly has done cost US. Action was required whilst Trump, remanisent of the CO in the movie Stripes, playing with toys while his 'boys' were painting the Town/Capitol Red, High Plains Drifter style, cause there can be no know of denial if there is, of how Trump shirked his duties to claim Biden had cooties, and only Trump should/could have won what was lost to a loss, cause at all costs Trump tried to have our elections' true results, denied! And though it may not reach or meet the explicit requirements as deemed in our Constitution or dictionaries, to any 'Patriotic' American, it should clearly example quite ample, what a treasonous traitor would attempt to do, cause Trump did, did Betray, and I see him as an enemy of the state, and he did aid and give comfort, to his own damn selfish pathetic self !
And you are free to explain how I have misinterpreted it all, but it will not change, to me, what a treasonous traitor would do and or look like, cause Trump exampled it, to me, plain as day, and that's, about all I gotta say about that....
except, Jenny Peeed on my carrots
You're welcome to an opinion.
You speak as if you've already explained that, yet I don't see it in this thread or the seed. Furthermore, I don't recall a conversation where how to read a dictionary was even an issue between us.
Yeah, so what we have here is you just saying everyone else is wrong just because you say so.
Ad hominem argument. Attempting to make others feel stupid for questioning your argument. Not effective on me. Sorry.
I guess I missed the post where you proved it so. Can't seem to find it. Can you point it out?
What do you expect to accomplish by denying a codified usage in English dictionaries?
Well, to answer that, why don't we begin with what it is you think I'm denying. That'd be a great start, as you have yet to explain why I'm wrong. I gave you an actual counterargument that had evidence. For instance, you said the definition of Traitor was
Which is true, but incomplete concerning what's being discussed. That traitor and treason are two sides of the same coin. I proved this or, at least, you have yet to respond with a counterargument. That is, I replied with the definition of treason...
I in no way am attempting to answer for TiG, though as usual,some context is a welcome ray of sunshine that can brighten and broaden ones comprehension on any said subject. I seem to recall many on the right complaining Trump cannot be a traitor as he was never charged with treason, and due to what evidence is required to charge one with treason, treason is not easily chjarged for good reason. There is a substantial burden of proof required to even think about bringing such a serious charge as defined in our laws and Constitution, in at least my laymans' simple interpretation. This said, it is not nearly as difficult to state, as one blatant example should not be contested, for it is a fact that Trump DID NOT do a damn thing besides sit back and watch, as people HE summoned to DC, did go on to the Capitol where they did riot. In my eyes, Trump is a Traitor to this country for not attempting to rectify the carnage, for his tweet about Pence not only did nothing to calm things, it in fact was the equivalent of dumping some more gas on an existing fire. I'm not as deep a thinker as say yourself and TiG, but I also do not believe my moniker is in always an applicable accurate description of my thought process either. Trump sat by for hours as a riot, that I personally blame on him(yes it's opinion}, played out in front of him, the then COMMANDER IN CHIEF, an he did NOTHING as his colleagues, enemies, and friends alike, were in a life or death situation.
Trumps' actions and in-actions leading up to the date, on that date, and after that date 1/06 2021 were enough evidence for this simple minded idiot to plainly see Trump was a TRAITOR to this country. There are many other cases where i thought he was a traitor as well, but that's another discussion.
I've seen TiG, time after time, in extensive detail, try to educate so many who cannot muster an argument or point of contention worthy of mention to counter his logic and reasoning, and expect to see four more long years of it, and feel his pain, at least to a small degree, for i have not the patience of he.
So you can await his reply whilst i crack open a cold one, cause cold wet work this morning needs done.
And yes, i offer only my biased opinion, and rack it up to what steers me, for my rack and pinyon may not sway even one opinion, but plenty will be critical of my thinking, and I am just fine with that.
I find no fault in what you've said here. Nothing I could or would argue with. I may not see it in quite the way that you do concerning all of it but I do agree with some of it. That is, I have no problem with you considering Trump a Traitor because, according to what your values lead you to believe you should expect (or is demanded by the office) from a sitting president, Trump betrayed those values in your view.
The important point concerning the argument TiG and I are having (sort of) is that there is an actual reason you call Trump a traitor. Treason is a betrayal of trust or a duty, whether we're talking the day to day interrelationships between people or the duty and expectations held by citizens and office holders. Since we can't use treason to define treason, betrayal is used as a synonym to convey the meaning assigned to treason, but other synonyms would work as well. That, in our day and age, we wouldn't typically use treason to describe a husband's unfaithfulness to his wife, it would be just as accurate as using the word unfaithful, as it means the same thing, as describing him as a traitor would also be.
An interesting side note (to me, anyway) was in pursuing this argument with TiG is just how misunderstood the word traitor really is. I think most people do not think of it as a word to describe what we would call unfaithfulness or stabbing someone in the back, but it actually is. When one looks up the synonyms for the word, I can't help get a sense of just how weak our use ( or understanding) of the word tends to be. The same with being a traitor, whether on the personal level or the legal/national obligation sense.
Mostly on the personal level, though. Like, how faithful am I really to my friends and family? How seriously do I take my obligations, or even recognize what they are? How well do I keep my word over justifying breaking it?
Perhaps, but in my opinion, that's been the case for every president going back as far as Nixon. To my mind, Biden was much worse than Trump when comparing presidencies. What I am more concerned with is that I don't see that stopping any time soon. In fact, it's just getting worse.
I'm fine with you giving your opinion as well. Stay warm in your cold, wet work. Cheers!
“This will be the one event he is best known for throughout history, and he will be known as a liar, a traitor, and a coward for what he did to America.” - Jamie Raskin
Examples of traitor
Clearly the word traitor has usage that does not demand the committing of legal treason.
Trump betrayed America.
For more than a year a few people on this forum have fought constantly to rewrite the usage of the word.
The dictionary definition does not require that one must commit treason to be a traitor:
Traitor1 ☞ "one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty"
That does not have any requirement to be found to be guilty of treason. Read the definition. Don't add your own meaning to what is written.
Now turn to treason and the usage that you focus on:
Treason2 ☞ "the betrayal of a trust"
This is the lesser and non legal meaning of treason. When people speak of treason, they typically are using the legal usage (Treason1):
Treason1 ☞ "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family"
Now, let's put this together.
When people refer to Trump as a traitor, they are correct in the most common usage of that word (Traitor1). Those who argue that Trump is not a traitor ask the brain-dead question: "when was he convicted of treason?" (Traitor2). The answer is that the meaning of traitor used in the claim is that of Traitor1 (the most common usage) and that usage does not require one commit legal treason to be considered a traitor.
Your sophistry is to point out that Traitor1 matches Treason2 and thus you declare these two words (not just these usages, but the words themselves) are two sides of a coin (same meaning from different perspectives). That is entirely dishonest and wrong. Your sophistry ignores that Traitor1 does not match Treason1 and thus ignores that these two words are indeed NOT two sides of a coin. These two words are used quite differently in the argument at hand:
Bottom line, Trump is a traitor because he betrayed his oath of office and the trust of the people. He need not be convicted of the crime of treason to be considered a traitor since the most common usage of the English word 'traitor' (Traitor1) does not require legal guilt of a crime.
not sure bout the upper ones,
but B leave my bottom ones, state something semi similar to this, so I'm thinkin i might have scored a partial point, and to sharpen it, would only further and deepen the risk my delicate being becomes an instrument meant to impale a bucket list way and way wrong, so there is my dance, can't remember my tune
you really don't expect them to address the article topic, do you?
I remain amazed that some actually think they can debate the codified usages of English words. To just flat out deny what is written and try to invent the desired meaning with cheap sophistry.
deflection to any detail they find debatable within a comment they cannot refute is their MO and SOP. demonstrated virtually every day and in almost every article that is contrary to the narrative they wish to project ...
you're their great white whale here, and their pathetic and moronic attempts to harpoon you are very entertaining.
They need to sharpen their blades if they want to harpoon TiG
If we talk about betrayal, we are talking about treason. If we talk about treason we are talking about betrayal. I do not see how you can fail to see this. There is no reading into it and there are no words added. There is no sophistry. It is literally the dictionary definition of the terms.
In actuality, to be a traitor you have to do something (betray) and that something is the treason. If you look at treason in the same dictionary you provided as evidence for your position it gives an example of the use of the word treason.
If something like this is a correct use of the word, then upon what basis can you deny whatever basis for which you label Trump (for example) as a traitor for necessitates committing treason? You can say "Well, he didn't commit treason, he just betrayed a trust." but that is literally the definition of treason. Or you could say that, although he is a traitor, in your view, he didn't commit anything prosecutable. The relevant word in that is "commit". Even if it isn't legally prosecutable he had to have done something. Whatever that something is is the treason, by definition.
Further, concerning definitions of Traitor, both usages 1 and 2 refer to exactly the same sort of behavior that results in one being called a traitor. The only difference between them is that one is prosecutable under the law. It is not the case that because Traitor1 is prosecutable that it is a different kind of traitor. Betrayal of trust is still the defining characteristic of the definition.
Except that most people who call Trump a traitor usually speak of Trump as attempting an insurrection concerning Jan 6th and the election as a whole. That would not be what you describe as the colloquial use of the word. Not really a brain-dead question in that light.
In any case, right or wrong, you take people to task for applying what you consider the wrong usage of treason (Treason1 ) but then...
... when I use the only other option (Treason2 ) you call it "sophistry". So, are you arguing that either usage of treason is entirely dishonest and wrong? Because it kinda seems like it has to be one or the other, doesn't it?
They do match and they together make up the same coin. Because you refuse to recognize the definition of treason doesn't make your case for you. Doesn't work that way.
Your argument appears to be based on that because you claim usage of Traitor1 then treason1 would be an inappropriate usage of traitor, as treason in a legally actionable way is not what is intended by traitor. That's fine, if the argument were about usage. It is not. It is about the definition of the words. By definition, they are two sides of the same coin, as you can't have one without the other, in any usage.
All you are doing is arguing usages, as if that defines the words. It doesn't.
More, you're denying the definition of treason, treating it as if it only applies in the legal sense. It doesn't. It always means a betrayal of trust. Some betrayals have legal penalties, which doesn't make such treasons different in definition, just different in treatment.
That said, I've wasted enough time on what should be obvious to any objective person.
Yes you have wasted your time. It really is fascinating (it is actually amusing) watching you pour so much effort into such sophistry in an absurd attempt to convince people of that which is not so — that one must be convicted of legal treason to be considered a traitor.
Obviously reasoning with you is pointless and since you reject usage 1 of Merriam-Webster (
) let's investigate this from a different perspective:
Google AI responds to the question: " Can one be a traitor without being convicted of treason? " with this answer:
ChatGPT 4o offers this when asked the exact same question:
But we should disregard the consistency of the formal usages defined by Merriam-Webster and the synthesis of a vast corpus of English narratives on this subject by Google AI and also by ChatGPT with its different but also vast corpus because Drakk of NewsTalkers insists that he knows better.
Parts of this thread were removed for no value.
And still you continue to argue usage instead of definition, as if that were the issue. Mock away.
As for the rest...
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Attributed to Socrates
"Ridicule is not a test of truth." attributed to Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield.
The definition is clear cut. You are the one who is absurdly trying to find ways to twist the most common usage of the word 'traitor'.
You ignore the dictionary and ignore the consistent synthesis by both Google AI and ChatGPT. All three correlate.
Instead, you resort to weak deflection.
Your 'argument' is ridiculous, Drakk.
Is Benedict Arnold a traitor?
I see a big debate following this comment, but I’m confused about why this is important. I understand we have another person saying he’s “not a traitor,” but Musk’s tweet says he “committed treason against the United States.” That’s what’s going to matter.
Because words matter. They have started wars and untold suffering. If one does not understand the actual meaning of a word and use it correctly, the basis of everything that follows will be in error.
Completely false, as my argument isn't about usage at all. This debate is about definition, not usage. I will remind you.
And to top it all off, you even confirmed my argument as correct in the following...
Whether speaking of what you call either the colloquial or legal usage of traitor, betrayal is a necessary component of either one. Betrayal is, by the definition of the dictionary we both rely on, treason, whether in the legal or colloquial sense.
As you state in the quote above, you consider Trump a traitor because he betrayed his oath of office and the trust of the people . That is literally the dictionary definition of treason. Although not stated specifically, Treason 1 has as its basis the same assumption of betrayal of trust and/or duty as Treason 2 . In other words, Treason 1 is built upon Treason 2.
Whether or not someone can be called a traitor without legally committing treason is not the issue. It is a red herring. A qualification in an attempt to avoid denying the truth of my argument. Because even though you apparently don't believe he committed treason in the legal sense, you recognize that he still committed treason in the personal, or colloquial sense, as you indicated in the above quote ! Betrayal of trust!
You are attempting to make it seem like treason only exists in the legal usage. That is not true. Treason is treason and "legal" has no part in the definition, only in usage. Because of that, one can consider Trump a traitor even if there is no evidence (or not enough) to convict him of treason for legal purposes. That would put such an accusation in the realm of opinion, but that opinion is still based on a perception of treason (betrayal of trust according to the dictionary, not me) on the part of the accused.
To be a traitor, you have to commit treason. In committing treason, you become a traitor. Different sides of the same coin. They cannot be separated without divesting them of their meaning.
Um, no. Everyone should disregard it because that isn't the subject of the discussion. You are simply creating a straw man and everyone you are appealing to here, who are the ones voting you up, probably aren't even bothering to read what I'm writing, let alone give it fair consideration.
Again, the subject is the definition of traitor and treason, not their usages. I'm sure you'll go right on ignoring that, though.
Drakk, there is one and only one point that I have made throughout. I have objected to the attempts to claim that to be validly labeled a traitor, one must be convicted of treason.
This all comes from Trump supporters objecting to labeling Trump a traitor for his Big-Lie con job attempt to steal the US presidential election in 2020. They argue that Trump is not a traitor because he has not been convicted of treason.
That is it. This needs only an extremely obvious proof per the dictionary yet I even supported it with Google AI, ChaptGPT, and anyone can easily corroborate this further with basic research. But, really, a dictionary is all one needs and if one is going to engage in ridiculous sophistry (as you have done and continue to do) to try to deny the clear definition (usage 1) in Merriam-Webster, that pretty much shows that one is not serious and is just playing some ridiculous game.
And as an obvious litmus test ...
Benedict Arnold is considered to be the exemplar USA traitor. Benedict Arnold was never convicted of treason.
Exactly the point many have been making and getting ignored
Again, the point many have been making only to be ignored by those that are stuck seeming to not understand their calling Trump a traitor is nothing other than an opinion. Of course anyone is welcome to that opinion but trying to make others share it as if it were fact is disingenuous. Also by that definition almost anyone could be considered a traitor, even Biden who is can be argued betrayed the trust of Americans when he opened the border or lying that he was capable of being president for another four years
The word "traitor" is regularly used in a non legal context.
In one way that should end this ridiculous argument.
They dont want to concede that Trump is indeed a traitor so they continuously try to parse the "difference" between the two words with the intent to prove neither word applies to Trump. Ok, I will stipulate - both words apply to Trump.
The continuation of this insane "argument" is beyond words at this point.
False equivalency. Arnold is generally labeled a traitor by the vast majority of Americans, Trump is considered a traitor by a minority of Americans
What they don't do is agree with your opinion that he is a traitor. That seems to be what is so hard for some to understand.
Nobody has claimed otherwise. Yes, it is opinion (as are most things in life). It is, however, legitimate opinion per the meaning of the word, to label Trump a traitor for his violations of his oath of office, defiance of the CotUS, attempt to disenfranchise the electorate, and incitement of supporters who in turn violently broke and entered the US capitol.
Nope, clearly these folks will make utterly ridiculous 'arguments' to try to defend against legitimately labeling Trump a traitor.
Given Benedict Arnold is the exemplar of a US traitor and has never been convicted of treason, that should on its own give pause to those engaging in these ridiculous attempts to distort codified usage of the word 'traitor'.
But ... they continue with their sophistry. It is bizarre, to say the least.
Wrong, Drakk is trying to argue that the words 'traitor' and 'treason' are "two sides of the same coin" and that one must be convicted of the crime of treason (sophistry=covertly switching usages of the word 'treason') to be considered a traitor.
A blatant lie.
Those who object to labeling Trump a traitor do so with the stupid 'rebuttal' of 'when was he convicted of treason?'.
Have you not noticed this, Drakk? Seriously?
False equivalency? Because Arnold is labeled a traitor by the vast majority of Americans and Trump by a minority that changes things?
Hello?
My point, which you ignored (of course) is that Benedict Arnold was never convicted of the crime of treason yet he is labeled a traitor. Thus, legitimately labeling one a traitor does NOT require that individual be convicted of the crime of treason.
The point I have proved repeatedly.
As opposed to an illegitimate opinion? Let me guess, your opinions are legitimate and anyone that does not agree with it has an illegitimate opinion?
Read the word" they" in my comment to JR
To your own satisfaction and those with like minds. Others, not so much...........
Yes. An illegitimate opinion is one that cannot be backed up with a reasonable argument based on facts. Something like: 'climate change is a global hoax' or 'the PRA gives Trump the right to take classified documents with him when he left office'.
Yes
Exactly
The general consensus that Arnold was a traitor is not the same thing as a not having a general consensus.
Hello
My point is (which seems to escape you) is that even in this comment you use the word "legitimately label". Don't you realize that is an opinion also? That would be like all the dems that knew Biden was not capable of serving another 4 years and lied to conceal it is a traitor. A view shared by several thousand people at least. If I throw the word legitimately into it does that make it anymore true?
There is a difference between stated repeatedly and proving repeatedly.
Just amazing.
Is Benedict Arnold a traitor? (The answer is an overwhelming 'yes') Was Benedict Arnold convicted of treason? (The answer is a definitive 'no')
Now: is it legitimate to label someone a traitor even if they have not been convicted of treason?
Answer: ____________
This has got to be one of the most feeble arguments made on this site. I have stated that labeling Trump a traitor is indeed opinion. That is not the point.
But, since you cannot rebut the actual point I made, you (pathetically) resort to arguing against a strawman.
It is legitimate to label someone a traitor even if they have not been convicted of treason. The most obvious example of this is Benedict Arnold.
In some minds, as aptly illustrated by your commentary here, but not all agree. Perhaps it is time just to agree to disagree and let sleeping dogs lie. You are convincing no one who doesn't share the same viewpoint(s) as you do aka spinning your wheels.
And who makes that determination? Just because you may believe your opinion is legitimate does not make it so, especially if the "facts" to support it may be seen as a pretty skewed interpretation. In that case credibility of the person claiming the "facts" comes into play.
Of course that is just my legitimate opinion.
Good advice. Trying to convince people your opinion is better or more legitimate than their opinion is a fools game at best.
It was actually a question. One that was never answered due to a deflection to make it personal to the poster attempt.
yet you and your deniers be not nothing more than truth Liars.
If that's who you choose to be, so be it, but we all know who is full of it, so pretend to be 'Patriotic pro biotics till someone says 'uncle', cause anti American is lying to ones self, but do, in fact over due it yourself, and then pretend it is a noble patriotic hero, that would sit and watch persons he summoned to DC riot and attack the peaceful transfer of power that had existed since the birth of this nation, cause it is also my opinion, those who can't see Trump is a traitor(s), are America and what it stands for, a hater(s) ,
legitimate, or illegitimate children both the same, just so dam fckn lame, that I certainly hope you be not attempting to be serious, cause you are no longer worthy of a response, yet, that was your goal all along, so go play with Trump and his ding a ling the A hole day wrong....
Who would we all be?
The individual who hears the claim will determine if they believe the claim is supported by sufficient fact and logic. Do you really need someone to explain this to you?
A person (like you) may not think a legitimate claim is legitimate; people routinely operate on emotion, bias, etc. and deny even cold hard fact. But in this case, we have not only a very clear usage definition for 'traitor' that does not require being convicted of the crime of treason, but we have Google AI and ChatGPT both of which have been trained on enormously large corpuses of English narratives dealing with this (and other) issues, and we have the preeminent exemplar of English use of the word traitor in the labeling of Benedict Arnold. All corroborate the point I made: "one does not require being convicted of the crime of treason to be legitimately labeled a traitor".
So you can deny this if you wish, but your denial is laughable given just the sources I mentioned.
Not at all. I just wanted to confirm you understood it
Agree. Just as some folks (you) may think they have a legitimate claim when in reality they do not. People that have a bias (possibly emotional, possible political) against someone like Trump may start with the premise he is a traitor and then look for things to confirm it in their own mind. Since you have accused so many others of confirmation bias I am sure you know what I mean. They may also consider things to be cold hard facts when in reality they are not, they are just twisted events to support the narrative. The more someone does it the less people believe that person has any real credibility So you can deny and ignore this if you wish, many independent and critical thinkers know better.
Instead of making a bullshit declaration, demonstrate how my claim is not legitimate: "one does not require being convicted of the crime of treason to be legitimately labeled a traitor".
Your comment is nothing but unsupported accusation. You offer no substantive argument. In short, more bullshit from you.
When you can't refute blame the other person of doing exactly what you are doing.
Correct, just as it is possible to be illegitimately labeled a traitor.
Anyone can read your daily comments and determine for themselves about any bias against anything Trump, any possible emotional lack of objectivity or any confirmation bias. Read 2.1.80, it is all there.
They are more than welcome to make any similar evaluation of my comments.
More bullshit from you.
The preeminent exemplar traitor in the USA is Benedict Arnold. Do you deny that he is a traitor and that he has not been convicted of treason?
More lame accusations
Do you deny Arnold and Trump are totally different cases and trying to compare them is ludicrous?
Deflection. You cannot even bring yourself to answer one of the most basic, obvious questions in US history.
No deflection at all but the accusation was expected. The question is not worth answering, it is just another deflection away from if there is a legitimate claim that Trump is a traitor or if it is just fueled by emotion, confirmation bias, lack of objectivity....etc. Since I made my point and all that is left is a deflection I will end here. Thanks for your time and lunch. Have a nice day.
When someone cannot even acknowledge one of the most fundamental questions in American history, that shows just how low they will stoop to argue for the sake of argument.
Ruthless
Just so I have this correct:
You ask a question
I state "The question is not worth answering, it is just another deflection away from if there is a legitimate claim that Trump is a traitor or if it is just fueled by emotion, confirmation bias, lack of objectivity....etc. Since I made my point and all that is left is a deflection I will end here.
You completely ignore that response because obviously Benedict Arnold is now the sole focus (for one of us anyway )and then make up your own reason for lack of my response and reason behind it, "arguing for the sake of arguing" even though I said I was ending and not continuing the arguing. I guess you miss the focus on Arnold is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
That is bringing pretzel logic to a whole new level. Unless the goal was just trolling in order to get me to respond in which case congratulations, you win.
ever open up a corner bar located on a circle, while firing at Will, cause where there is a Will, someone usually did pass, on, the inner outside of the shoulder of the interior department for rent when it's the lease you couldn't due, due too, horizontal vertigo that ran Zakk Wylde on your emotions worn warn, on your sleeve of the short sleeved not gay, but straight yellow jacket that had a packet of S & M's on the inside pocket of your long deceived and sleeved dress shirt that allows you to bear arms sew you could tear the bear clause up, and know longer knead to pet the part wear ewe begin to start, to realize sum are advanced at working played games, fore, a golf carted twice on the green, can make one recarted as fck, ore the irony of, so it does seem to flow seamlessly, the grater won fails to make it seems, so inn a roundabout weigh, someones sunken dreams become anothers treasure, a vested interest that diminished like power, from a beating blinking reflectove cover, on an ultramans sunken treasure chest width out nipples, butt made a breast, of how another can beet red the flush out of anothers' caved in chest x ray man, cause Wopner at 7 Eleven dozen make a baker erect scaffolding, but it mite bug another just enuff to creep under the subcutanious substance surrounding a load of shit, and we can sea you got it, and it certainly does fit like without a glove, know love for the rest of the weary and the wickett, asz offences like Wilson did depict it, now reread and suckceed at watt eye here a mind can do, when i mind you...
Why do traitor and treason matter in this context?
usually, but as demonstrated, not always to me....
it easier to argue about the word's definition than it is to defend the traitor ...
That's the thing, TiG. You don't even understand what Google AI and ChatGPT answered. It didn't support your argument, it supported mine.
And even though you tried to skew the question with your phrasing, Google AI program actually had to qualify its answer in order to say "yes". The program would not have had to do that if the answer was an unqualified yes. It also recognizes the usage of treason for the broader, non-legal usage, which the dictionary we're using gives an example of.
This shit got old about six months ago.
The absurd declarations just never end.
(sigh) You keep ignoring the point and engaging in ridiculous sophistry. Hard to imagine what motivates you to spend your time in a futile attempt to change the primary meaning (usage 1) of an English word.
The point, once again, is that one can, per the meaning of usage 1 of the word 'traitor', properly label someone a traitor based on violation of trust, etc. There is no requirement that this person be convicted of treason.
The case in point is the labeling of Trump a traitor because of his attempt to steal the 2020 election and all that it entailed. Trump supporters argue that Trump cannot be called a traitor because he was not convicted of treason. That is wrong. Obviously.
But go ahead, Drakk, keep on spinning your wheels with ridiculous levels of sophistry.
What is your take? Is Benedict Arnold a traitor or not?
I would also be curious if the people that thought of him as a traitor knew exactly what he did to be called one. I have a feeling the number of people that could explain why would be disappointingly low.
[✘] You responded to my comment, not I to yours! Once again...
You do what you always do. Change what is being discussed and argue from that.
There was nothing in the red highlighted quote that said anything about the necessity of a conviction. Nothing that suggested it. That is purely a device employed by yourself in order to change the nature of the argument. You have been arguing a straw man the entire time, while I have been arguing the point you objected to in the first place.
Worse, you then proceed accuse me of falsity in this engagement when it's actually you who is doing so. You accuse me of a lack of integrity and false dealing while deceptively arguing from a straw man position. That works well enough for those who only see this as a contest of personalities, meaning they don't care what's said, they just want to see you as right, but it doesn't work very well for those who are interested in truth or fairness.
Just keep piling on the bullshit while dodging the key question:
Do you recognize that, per the English language both formally and empirically, the term 'traitor' can be (and has been) properly applied to individuals who have not been convicted of treason?
Exactly.
It isn't absurd and it was a declaration backed up with reasoning, whereas your response was unsupported mockery. I think that tells us something.
(Sigh) The here is that you continue to argue from a straw man, as I explained in 2.1.99 . Therefore, there's no point in addressing this. It is not germane to what you objected to in starting this farce with me.
In the end, the ridiculous argument is yours. You're perfectly willing to label someone a traitor, even without a conviction, because you correctly recognize that traitor has a broader usage than simply referring to one who has been convicted of treason. In spite of that, you do not do the same thing with treason, even though it has the same identical usages; one a narrow, legal usage and the other, just as broad as the common usage of traitor.
I can't make it any clearer than that. Of course, you're going to continue to make this about your straw man. That this has all been about not needing a conviction to be called a traitor and I can anticipate more mockery instead of reasoning.
It's not wrong once one accepts that you're oversimplifying what is actually occurring in that argument. One is perfectly free to have the opinion that Trump is a traitor, but that is all it is.
Once one starts arguing with someone about it, though, that makes it a different thing. In order to argue the case for Trump being a traitor, one necessarily has to bring up what one considers evidence, that is, what treasonous acts that one believes are deserving of being called a traitor. This is done in two ways. One is to simply list them as if they are universally accepted facts. The other is to argue that the presented "facts" should be regarded as true descriptions of the treasons.
The other side of the argument doesn't have to share those opinions on either the charge of being a traitor or that the "evidence" presented to support the claim. Outside of an actual legal conviction, those are simply opinions. Since some obviously share neither the opinion about the charge of being a traitor or the evidence, then upon what basis are they supposed to proceed? If they think Trump is neither a traitor or committed treasonous acts, why would it be wrong for them to ask where the conviction is? One would simply be demanding that they accede to their insistence that Trump is a traitor because that is one's opinion.
In arguing that Trump is a traitor, one is arguing in front of the court of public opinion. The defense has no obligation to support someone else's opinions. It is not wrong to say he can't be called a traitor in that setting because there's no agreement on the "facts" of the case. The charge of instigating an insurrection, for instance may be the view of some but it isn't of others, nor are they required to share it.
He was a traitor.
Have you read my posts?
Correct per English usage.
And since he was NOT convicted of treason, we have long-standing, historical, empirical proof that one need not be convicted of treason to be properly labeled a traitor.
Great. And that does what to disprove my point to which you claimed ...
Yes, it all seems like a pointless rabbit hole from here. Why are you all arguing about the definitions of traitor and treason?
Per the dictionary (again, again, ...) and the synthesized results of two major AI LLM engines, and the historical exemplar of Benedict Arnold and myriad examples, you do not need to commit treason to be a traitor and —in spite of the claims of a number of conservatives on this site— Trump does not need to be convicted of treason to be properly considered a traitor. One can "betray[s] another's trust or is [be] false to an obligation or duty" and be properly labeled a traitor.
Note how there is no requirement in this definition that one must commit treason. ⇡
That's great and all but my claim did not stipulate the necessity for a conviction of treason. That is a straw man of your creation. So now what are you going to claim?
Just amazing.
Look at what is in blue; these are your words ... this is what started this. You stated that to be a traitor you have to commit treason. That is flat out NOT the case as I have shown repeatedly.
One can "betray[s] another's trust or is [be] false to an obligation or duty" and be properly labeled a traitor. Committing treason is not a requirement.
The fact that one can label a betrayal as treason does not mean that every betrayal is ipso facto treason. That is your sophistry.
Also, that is incorrect. You are using the broader definition of traitor. The broader definition of treason applies. Else what basis behind the charge of traitor?
Then what would you yourself use the broader definition of treason for? How would you use it in a sentence?
There is no requirement in the language. You are literally denying the words in front of your face.
In English parlance, the word treason typically deals with a betrayal of a nation state. The meaning of words in the English language is a function of the actual usage of those words by real people.
For example, if someone betrays their sport team, do people label that an act of treason? If someone cheats on their spouse, is that normally considered treason? If someone quits their job and goes to work for the competition, is that treason?
Or to ask essentially the same question, if the dictionary answers the question I just asked you with saying reading someone's diary without permission is an act of treason, would not all the ways you believe Trump betrayed is oath, office and the people that leads you to call him a traitor not also properly, by the definition and usage provided in the dictionary, also be acts of treason?
Betraying the trust of the diary's owner is treason but what Trump did was not because he wasn't convicted of it in the legal usage? If so, what do you do with the broader meaning of treason? What is it there for?
Did you read @2.1.114?
Do you, given your empirical knowledge of the English language consider it an act of treason to read someone's diary without permission?
The broader use of treason empirically has applied to nation states (including the military). It is usually a betrayal of an oath made to the people. It would be very unusual for someone to, for example, speak of a former employee working for a direct competitor as committing treason.
Yes, because there is an expectation of trust and duty. That person is also a traitor. It may not be normal usage (although I think people might use such terms in sports), which is what you are relying on, but it would by no means be wrong. It would not be stretching the meaning of either traitor or treason. It would simply be unusual.
No, because there is no expectation of lifelong service. There is expectation of loyalty while employed; not divulging secrets, not working against the company's interests, etc.
Is that how you see people using the word treason? They would often call the person a traitor, but you actually think that it is common to label that 'treason'?
Who gives a damned whether it's common? What does that have to do with it? Why do you keep trying to change the parameters of this? Are you changing the subject again? Are we now going to debate whether it's common or something?
Is it accurate to state that any betrayal of a trust or duty is treason by definition, whether it be in the narrow legal sense or the broader scope of common usage? If treason only applies by conviction, what is the broader meaning of treason there for and why did it give an example like the diary for usage? Why are you not answering that question?
You should because that is how natural languages work. The meaning of a word (in context) is derived from how it is actually used by people.
Just stop with the theatrics. Be serious.
So when I answer you claim I have not. Let's try this again and I will try to be as specific as possible for you:
No. It is definitionally valid to deem a betrayal of a trust as treason, but there is no requirement that everything that can be considered a betrayal of a trust is considered to be treason
Treason does not ONLY apply to conviction. Benedict Arnold is an example of colloquial use of treason. Again, as I noted, this comes from applying his acts against a nation state. Very common, very accepted. But a top athlete playing for a direct competitor is NOT (normally) considered treason. And reading someone's diary is NOT normally considered treason. And sleeping with your wife's best friend is NOT normally considered treason. But if you hold elected office and you violate your oath, that is often considered treason ... but even then the word 'treason' is commonly used for very serious violations.
And here is an answer from an authoritative source since (no doubt) you dismissed my answer:
If you research this, you will find that this will be highly corroborated (it is a fact).
Why did you say "no" and then immediately contradict that it is accurate to state that any betrayal of a trust as treason?
That is correct but, unfortunately, you go on to give examples where there is not any obligation trust or duty, except in Arnold's case, which has complications I will address last.
That is generally correct. That is because an athlete, having quit one team to join another has no expectations of duty or obligations to their former team, although a lot of people will still call that person a traitor and treasonous anyway. I know traitor certainly was a part of my thinking when Russell Wilson left the Seahawks, unfair as I knew that to be.
But that is exactly what it is. That we don't normally speak of it in those terms doesn't make it less the case. And how I wish that we did speak of such things in such terms. Today, to say that a guy slept with someone else's wife gets little more than a "tsk tsk!" It's almost expected. Saying "he cheated on her" is a weak way to say how monstrous a trust he betrayed. Traitor and treason get much closer to the severity.
True, but I am not arguing its commonality. I'm arguing its meaning.
You know, if you just accepted what I said, that the dictionary actually backs it up, it would not do a damned thing to weaken your argument about Trump. You think he's a Traitor. I've seen what you've written about why you believe he is. They certainly meet the qualifications of treason in the broader sense and would meet the narrower, legal sense if anyone could actually put forth solid, objective evidence for them. You have no problem calling him traitor, why on earth would you have a problem with calling his actions treason, especially when it isn't necessary to prove them legally and it's clear that you think they are? Without a conviction of treason, traitor is only an opinion. The same applies to treason and for the same reasons. You lose nothing.
I don't need to research it. I agree with everything it said and understand it. What I don't understand is how you think how common a particular word's usage may be affects its definition. That is, I understand that when a new word, or an old word that gained an additional meaning (mouse), comes along and it meets the criteria listed in the article for inclusion, they add it. But it doesn't say that because a particular word may not get used much or used often in a specific context, it somehow changes the meaning of the word or makes it less appropriate. That is not the case.
Correction. That should read...
That is correct but, unfortunately, you go on to give [some] examples where there is not any obligation trust or duty, except in Arnold's case, which has complications I will address last.
Also, I forgot about Arnold. Arnold would almost certainly have been convicted if they had managed to capture him. They had a reward of 5,000 gold pieces for his capture. I would say American history certainly convicted him, at least. Not that this changes anything about your point. It doesn't, since he wasn't actually tried and convicted. Just sayin.
Amazing how a simple dictionary definition gets some to translate the definition into why they want it to be.
Well, Drakk, that is why I went through the explanation of usages (which you either did not understand or refuse to understand). And that is why I linked in Merriam-Webster's explanation of how meaning is attributed to English words. This is not just Merriam-Webster, this is the concept of modern dictionaries (starting —formally— with Oxford).
Merriam-Webster lists usages in order of commonality. That is, the most used / most accepted meaning for a word is listed as usage 1 with the lesser used variant meanings following as subsequent usages.
The most common usage of 'traitor' defines the word sans a requirement for committing treason. And the most common usage of 'treason' refers to the legal definition of treason.
Thus when someone claims that for Trump to be properly considered a 'traitor' (implicitly usage 1 of traitor ☞ traitor1) he must be convicted of 'treason' (implicitly usage 1 of treason ☞ treason1) that is simply not the case. If it were the case then 'traitor1' would have included the requirement of committing the crime of treason1 . It does not!
Treason, as most commonly used, is an emotionally charged word referring to a gross violation of a trust ... typically against the people / constitution of a nation. It would be a fundamental failure of methodology for a dictionary to not include this factor as a defining characteristic of the word 'traitor' if in fact one must commit treason1 (or even considered to have committed the crime of treason) to be considered a traitor.
The dictionaries are not wrong, you are.
With all the names folks could, and do, call Trump it seems the most important is to be able to call him a traitor and then try to convince people it is fact when it is obviously just an opinion. Then we move into the legitimate vs illegitimate use of the word which somehow makes the opinion count more it they declare their opinion legitimate, which of course is an opinion if the opinion is legitimate. I can't wait to see what's next.
Ironic
You keep repeating this as if it is something new. Most comments are opinions. Even legal judgements such as finding someone guilty of treason is ultimately opinion (albeit great care is taken to bind that opinion in the best possible evidence and using the best possible logic).
It is indeed an opinion to state that Trump is a traitor. The validity of the opinion depends now upon the evidence and logic used to conclude Trump is a traitor. Given the most commonly used / accepted meaning of the word 'traitor', coupled with the fact that Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement and that his actions violated his oath of office, violated the CotUS, and attempted to disenfranchise the electorate, that would seem to be rather solid ground for labeling Trump a traitor.
(sigh)
So validity of an opinion has replaced legitimacy of an opinion. Cool
This statement sums it up. Of course I am sure you realize the the validity of an opinion is also an opinion. In the case of the above comment you legitimize the validity of your opinion by saying "the fact that Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement and that his actions violated his oath of office, violated the CotUS, and attempted to disenfranchise the electorate" Of course none of those are facts, just your opinion. Ergo you are using your opinions to validate (legitimize) your opinion.
Same meaning. Is this all you have to offer?
Again, this chickenshit is the best you have to offer?
Of course, one who does not understand that Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement and that his actions violated his oath of office, violated the CotUS, and attempted to disenfranchise the electorate is beyond reason.
just as your decision to not accept factual evidence due to bought ass, brought about buy ass that polluted your own opinion with bias you have not the collateral needed to wield it, cause if you cannot see what any rational semi thinking individual CAN see, you are not on the up and up to me, for there is evidence before during and after the election and birth a placentayfull and a plentyful, that you choose not to consider because it will mean you were duped by one who is not even a fair Bullshitter, let alone a great LIAR . For to be so lost as to wear reality does start and end, andn then cross, would have to leaves you in the comprehension scoring of one bordering on Special, or extra special education denied, and then to think your little Q n A tiddlywinks "debate" on this seed makes it appear you may have consumed a tad too much weed in the garden you self grew under the bell curve for whom it tolls, for even stripper polls have vaulted out in front of you with that which you claim to not knew any better than below below average intellect that if you were to dissect, would likely place the majority of most insects, ahead of you in standard testing placement, so if you are this ignorant, all apologies and my condolences, but we can see what it is that is causing this specific blindness, and since it is your choice, optional, is kindness. So, so simple one, you N joy yourself and have fun, just realize that YOU are inviting that which I will be wrongly writing for you to take as constructive criticisms, destructive praise, and throw in some Purple Haze, cause ablaze in saddles may light a fire under ones ass to think four those that cannot think for themselves and thus need to be reminded to blink, so as to lubricate the pupils, and you will find the need for a vast amoiunt of lube, in deeds and measures, asz it will not be my pleasures, to advance your regressing thought process of over processed pre predicated so that won will lose just to that point and hate it written out for too clean is a brain, when brain back washed from maga sewer grates that inflame asses and masses of asses too worried about what appeers to be purposefully polluted propaganda's that bear the weight of prehistoric pandas wearing bandannas to cover their eyes which cause sometimes wear there are too many LIES the problem solved by all or nun involved purposely miss perceived in an a tempt to pretend you are a Master mister of tjhe points that i'll light up for you till like Trump stated, you'll be winning so much, in your case, so fckn brite, you're gonna hate it. And for once, I don't think Trump was lion, about grabbin pussies neither, cause apparently, some do just let em'
On to the next tired old tactic, starting with a declaration that the comment is bullshit, or chicken shit. Then saying if someone doesn't accept your opinion as fact it must be because they are beyond reason. Interesting that some feel the same way about someone that has shown no objectivity when it comes to Trump in years. Yet they expect others to accept their opinion as fact because.........maybe because they keep on repeating it multiple times a day every day.
As noted, one who does not understand that Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement and that his actions violated his oath of office, violated the CotUS, and attempted to disenfranchise the electorate is beyond reason.
I got it the first time. If someone doesn't take your opinion as fact it is because they are not reasonable. Saying it twice does not make it look any better.
As noted, Interesting that some feel the same way about someone that has shown no objectivity or reasonableness when it comes to Trump in years.
(sigh)
But you are not?
Turns out that's wrong. They mostly list them by historical *chronological) appearance in the language, not by current usage.
From the Words Matter Podcast, produced by Merriam-Webster.
I myself did not know this. I just assumed you knew what you were talking about, but it turns out you didn't. There goes about 80% of your argument : )
I didn't know this either but, yes, you are correct.[✘]
Looks like you are correct on this one detail, my source was wrong on this point. This did surprise me. Congratulations.
It does not hurt my argument in any way. My argument is that the most commonly used meaning for traitor (commonly in the sense that when you query the definition for traitor this is what typically comes up and this is the same meaning resulting from the corpus synthesis of Google AI and ChatGPT AI ☞ see @2.1.48) does not require one to have committed treason to be considered a traitor. Further not only is this usage the one mostly cited in queries, it is also (per your source) the original and longest standing usage of the word (note: this usage is still in play ... not marked as archaic).
The order of usages in Merriam-Webster does not change this argument in any way. ⇡
Further, it does nothing to support your claim that traitor and treason are (implicitly always) two-sides of the same coin. Your claim remains dead wrong. As evidenced easily by examples: an employee who quits and works for a competitor meets the common definition of traitor and could easily be labeled as such, but his/her act is typically not labeled 'treason'. A sports fan who switches loyalty to another team (because their team is doing poorly) could easily be properly labeled a traitor, but the act would typically not be labeled 'treason'.
To wit, it is entirely proper to refer to Trump as a traitor because he attempted to steal the 2020 election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement and that his actions violated his oath of office, violated the CotUS, and attempted to disenfranchise the electorate. It is NOT required that he meet any definition of 'treason' and certainly not required that he be convicted of the crime of treason.
That is correct in every sense. The incessant arguments to the contrary have been nothing but a lot of empty talk.
... I think you mean a shit load of wasted keystrokes.
Then you do not understand what they said in the podcast, as you continue to argue usage, as you do here...
First, the argument isn't about what is the most common definition usage of the word treason. It is about whether someone can be a traitor without committing treason. The answer to that question lies solely on the definition of the word. Your attempt at trying to tie it to the most commonly used definition is simply an ad populum fallacy.
Second, I find your attempt to use Google AI and ChatGPT as evidence highly problematic, as they are simply programs. They are not entities aware of their own existence, let alone what it is they output or understand it. Therefore, I do not consider such programs authorities on any subject. You certainly wouldn't hear "But ChatGPT says..." in a court of law, for instance. So, too, in a debate.
Third, even if I were to accept an AI's testimony you incorrectly stated what those programs returned when you asked your question, and it is a big omission.
If treason, period, were not necessary to be a traitor, why qualify it by putting in in terms of ' in a legal sense ' or ' the strict legal definition of treason '? Answer: to differentiate it from another sense or definition. For example, Google AI gives the following example.
ChatGPT offers essentially the same example.
It doesn't say the action wasn't treasonous, it says it doesn't meet the legal definition of treason . As you well know, treason has another application other than the legal sense and revealing confidential information to a rival company is certainly treasonous under that definition. Betrayal of trust: treachery. To be a traitor requires a treasonous action or inaction in order to be a traitor.
The example that you think proves your point actually fails you. It fails you because you treat the example superficially or, as Spock might say, "Your pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking" which Google AI (since you value that program's input) describes the meaning to be:
To avoid thinking of your example in only two dimensions we need to ask the question " Why does quitting one job to work for a competitor label him as a traitor in the minds of his former co-workers ?" The answer will be along the lines of " He's going to use the confidential information he has against us. Our business will suffer. It will now be harder to compete because of him. He has no sense of loyalty. He abandoned us for a better job " or some such. The underlying emotion would be a sense of betrayal on some level. Treason. Without it, there's no basis for calling the person a traitor as traitor requires betrayal of trust or duty of some sort. That is, without betrayal of trust or duty, there's neither traitor nor treason. If you have betrayal of trust or duty, you have the requirements to meet the definition of both.
I'll repeat myself. Without betrayal of trust or duty, there's neither traitor nor treason. If you have betrayal of trust or duty, you have the requirements to meet the definition of both.
Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
Treason: the betrayal of a trust : treachery
If you continue to argue against this, you are throwing out the dictionary and simply declaring your argument is true and correct. It certainly isn't based on anything in the dictionary.
Is it your opinion that Trump committed treason?
You got it.
Yes, it is my opinion that Trump committed treason. What he did not only qualifies him as a traitor, but also IMO meets the normally accepted threshold to deem his acts to be treasonous. (Normally accepted = serious violation of a trust held by the public by a national official.) I do not think that is the strongest charge to be made of Trump given the emotive value of that term which is likely why Smith made the charges that he did. That is, I think Smith put forth charges for the strongest possible case given he was up against the political issues of charging a former PotUS.
Being able to meet the requirements of both does not mean the two words are two-sides of the same coin. It means they can (through different usages) correlate at times (as I noted).
What you refuse to recognize is that there is no requirement per the English language that one commit treason to be able to be labeled a traitor. As evidenced by even the most obvious examples that I stated:
You ignore that an employee can be properly deemed a traitor if they go to work for another employer. That act is typically not labeled 'treason' but calling them a 'traitor' is not at all unusual. Same with someone supporting a sport team other than the local team. The word 'traitor' applies but it would be quite unusual for someone to claim that supporting a non-local team is an act of treason.
You ignore that the dictionary does not state committing treason as a defining characteristic for the word traitor. You ignore that both Google AI and ChatGPT AI which synthesize the most common usages of the word 'traitor' (which is the fact that I was putting forth) consistently agree with the dictionary.
You (absurdly) label an ad populum fallacy that fact that the most commonly cited usage (in addition to being the earliest extant (non archaic) usage) and the corroboration of the AI LLM engines do not require committing treason (totally confusing the concept of the fallacy). This is like claiming it is an ad populum fallacy to note that Taylor Swift is one of the most popular entertainers on the planet.
Bottom line, if the definition of traitor was exclusively 'one who committed treason' you would have a point. But that is NOT the case. The dictionary clearly allows one to be deemed a traitor merely by violating a trust and that violation need not be one that would be normally considered treason. Again, my examples illustrate this nicely.
The two words are NOT two-sides of the same coin. There are usages of these words where that can occur, but you ignore the other usages and focus only on those which support your claim. That is a fundamental failure of logic. Although in this case, it is clearly intentional on your part.
Um,... yeah. I'll just consider that as you getting the last word.
[✘]
blah, blah, blah ... it's a snapshot of why thumpers haven't been able to accomplish anything substantial on the planet in over 2000 years, and never will ...
Point of fact: The Merriam-Webster dictionary lexicographers are in the process of updating their entries to be most common usage first, but since there are a lot of words, it is going to take some time.
Interesting how many 'facts' are not strictly black and white. Good info. Here is where I found corroboration for your comment:
And I will note again that the most cited usage for ' traitor ' as evidenced by querying the word for dictionary searches and asking for the definition from two of the largest LLM AI corpuses out there (Google AI and ChatGPT4o) are all equivalent. In all three tests of common usage we have a consistent definition that does not require committing treason to be considered a traitor.
Of course, this should be obvious to anyone familiar with English. As per my obvious examples:
Similarly, and in a much grander sense, if the sitting PotUS engages in lying, coercion, fraud, and incitement in an attempt to steal a presidential election and thus violates his oath of office, the CotUS, and attempts to disenfranchise the electorate, that is a profound violation of trust of the people and in our history such behavior would result in deeming the individual a traitor. Even if said PotUS was not charged with treason.
The Oxford Dictionary is the premier dictionary of the English language, I bellieve.
This is their entry for traitor
I'll just put it like this, if you cant be a traitor unless you have committed treason, why are there defintions 1 and 2 ? Why not just one defining a traitor as one who commits treason?
Yes. Usages are OR conditions. Each usage reflects a particular accepted meaning based on how English speaking people have (and do) use the term in actual language. Actual usage is what determines the meaning of an English word.
So if a usage defines 'traitor' and does not include a defining characteristic of 'must have committed treason' then that is simply NOT part of the meaning for that usage.
But beyond the technical, how is it possible that these examples do not clarify that one can be properly labeled a traitor even if one has not committed treason?:
So, apparently you like to complain about someone trying to discuss the difference (all my posts on the subject) yet still can ask this question. I've answered this seven ways to Sunday!
Whether we use Merriam-Webster or the Oxford, there are two primary definitions that concern us. The ones you posted from the Oxford
and the more simply stated one in Merriam-Webster.
Merriam-Webster
Like Traitor, both definitions refer to the same concept; an action that violates a trust or duty, but one refers to treasons that are legally actionable.
If one believes that Trump betrayed his duties in a manner that doesn't meet the standard of legally actionable acts, those acts are still defined as treason, but not in the legally actionable sense. Trump could still be called a traitor, although it would be that person's opinion. The evidence that it is correct to do so is in the example Merriam-Webster gives for the second definition of treason.
How this relates to the Trump issue.
If one claims that Trump committed legally actionable betrayals of his oath, office or other duty and calls him a Traitor because of that, they are claiming that Trump is a traitor in the legally actionable sense; legal treason. Assuming no trial has occurred, it is correct for that individual to claim Trump is a traitor in the legal sense. However, doing so is merely an opinion. No other person necessarily has to operate on that assumption. One could not argue some other issue concerning Trump, such as being disqualified for office because of being a traitor as that is mere opinion and not fact. Were he convicted, that would disqualify him and such an argument would be valid.
If Trump cheated on his wife, he would be a traitor to his wife and his vows to her, having committed treason against both. That is a correct usage of those terms in examples that don't involve legal violations.
I already answered that. You ignored it. Why would he reply to such a question? So you can ignore whatever he writes, too?
You totally ignored the point I made and simply noted that the betrayal matches one of the usage of treason. Something that I have already acknowledged several times.
My point in the example is to illustrate how people commonly use language. Even though it is technically correct for someone to label a sport fan switching allegiances as 'treason', that would be a very unusual use of language. And since the labeling of 'traitor' clearly, obviously, is not always accompanied with the label of 'treason', these two words are absolutely NOT two-sides of the same coin as you claimed (and I have thoroughly proved your claim to be wrong).
The meaning of words are a function of how they are used by the population. And if you think a sport fan labeled a traitor for abandoning the local team would also necessarily be labeled to have committed an act of treason, then you are out of touch with the English language.
Explain that to those who you are trying to impress. Explain to them why Trump's actions easily justify labeling him a traitor and that there is no requirement for Trump to be formally found guilty of the crime of treason.
( The level of absurdity taking place nowadays with attempts to defend Trump is staggering. )
No, you haven't. All you are basing your argument on is whether or not it would be common for someone to refer to a betrayal as treason for a given situation. That is not how definitions, or the dictionary works. Once a word not in the dictionary (new word) gets used enough to warrant inclusion into a dictionary they include it into the next iteration. Once it is there, the meaning of the new word, or the old word with a new meaning, is fixed. It does not change. It doesn't matter a damned how often it appears in conversation.
Nor is this an OR thing. It is an IF/THEN thing. According to the definition of treason, IF a trust or duty is betrayed it is THEN a treason and the offender is a traitor. The dictionary even gives an example of it being used just that way. No matter how uncommon the usage may be, if one is a traitor one necessarily committed treason. I know you know this is absolutely correct. You just don't have the courage to say you are wrong.
Unless there is a conviction, explain how it can be anything other than opinion. It is simple logic, TiG.
You are either lying or don't even know what point you were making.
You intended to disprove my coin claim with your examples. I replied directly to your claim by showing that your evidence did not in fact, disprove my claim. You even shoot yourself in the foot, qualifying your example by using the word typically, which suggests to me you know damned well that the act, by definition, is treason. How did I ignore your point???
( I feel like I am in a Monty Python sketch. )
Wrong. My argument is that the meaning of words are codified as usages. And that each usage stands alone. When a usage is defined in a dictionary, the meaning is stated in the definition. So if the definition of a usage does NOT require that one consider an act to be treason to consider someone a traitor then it is wrong for people like you to demand that this be a defining characteristic.
Wrong again (good grief, man)! If three usages are listed in a dictionary, they are independent semantic expressions. That is the concept of a usage. An English word can (and often does) have multiple variant (sometimes contradictory) meanings. Each meaning is called a usage. Each usage is a distinct semantic element. To wit, a word with three usages can be properly held to mean usage1, usage2, or usage3.
Context is used to help determine which usage applies.
This is where you are wrong both technically and in terms of common usage. My example illustrates how wrong you are in usage since you effectively just stated that if a sports fan changes allegiances to a team other than the local team that the sports fan has ipso facto committed treason and would be labeled as such.
And this is how you are technically wrong.
The reality is that the sports fan could be deemed to have committed treason but it is not MANDATORY. And in actual discourse by real English speaking people, it would not necessarily be considered an act of treason. So your two-sides of the same coin claim remains nonsense.
And yet again you (I am confident: intentionally) miss my point. Do you see me suggesting this is NOT opinion? No? So why are you arguing this strawman instead of attempting to rebut the point I actually made?:
Pathetic.
What does the word 'necessarily' mean to you? I used the word 'typically' because that accurately acknowledges that it is possible (albeit a bit absurd) to deem the disloyal sports fan to have committed treason based on usage2 of the word 'treason'.
Your 'logic' demands that labeling someone a 'traitor' means that one necessarily would (not could, would) label them to have committed 'treason'. That is demonstrably wrong both in terms of how the English language is used (people simply do not use the words that way) and in terms of what a usage means in the dictionary (two usages matching does not mean that the two words themselves are two-sides of the same coin).
No. That is not correct. Ask yourself, "If it is an old word with a new meaning, how can the previous definition have been fixed, for here is the new definition?"
Dictionaries are like time capsules in that they keep track of the ways that people use words and how those uses change over time.
From :
Trump is a traitor guilty of treason.
We cannot state that he is legally guilty of treason because no jury has convicted him of treason. One can, however, state that one believes Trump committed the crime of treason.
Regardless, he is obviously a traitor.
My view is that Trump is a traitor and that view can be well-justified by his actions after his election loss. I also personally believe that he committed the crime of treason, but unfortunately there will never be a legal finding of guilt for this crime given the circumstances.
Musk is traitor guilty of treason.
[✘]
I'll deal with this first. How are you going to use an OR operation to decide between the three? What is going to give you your true/false values??? Not the OR. You need an IF/THEN operation in order to set that value. So...
It is not a matter of whether the definition of a usage requires it, nor does it depend on human desires. It depends on the elements of the definition.
Assuming an action or inaction that is a betrayal of trust or duty, IF the intent is to communicate that the traitor is a traitor because of legally actionable crimes or has been already proven, then legal traitor = true. IF not, then legal traitor = false.
Casual traitor is always true if there is a betrayal of trust or duty but we essentially evaluate the conditions for legal traitor first and ignore the casual, as a conditional logical OR would.
The same goes for treason. The condition for treason is the betrayal of a trust or a duty. IF that betrayal meets the conditions for legal treason or the intent is to communicate that they do, THEN legal treason returns true. IF not, Then false.
If there is a betrayal of trust or duty, casual treason is always true but ignored in the same conditional logical OR way.
Everything I just said here is true. It isn't a matter of what I want. It is a matter of the terms of the definition and logical operation. None of this means we have to go around calling everything treason or that I am insisting on it. You are absolutely correct that people seldom use treason in that manner these days except to refer to legally actionable treason. People generally use some synonym of treason for casual treason, like duplicity, betrayer, disloyal or some other term. But that doesn't change the fact if...
Action is betrayal of trust or duty = treason.
It is literally the definition of it, whether it's commonly used or not. Traitor and treason are inseparably linked by the common term "betrayal of trust or duty". It's that simple.
Well, shit, TiG. Just what was your point, then? Let's look at the whole context, shall we???
Just what the hell was your point if it wasn't an objection to what I said? Especially when, as far as I can tell, I already did what you were asking in the very paragraph you got that quote from.
And it wasn't in defense of Trump. Is your argument so weak you have to resort to that?
No. It isn't "here is the new definition". It is "here is a new definition".
Mouse
Is it your contention that if I read a story written in the 1800's that has a mouse in it I'm now supposed to think that little Timmy's cat chased down a computer mouse in the barn? Or, when I go to the hardware store to buy a mouse trap I'm going to see something with a picture of a computer mouse on it?
Okay? Is there a point in there somewhere?
No, that isn't correct. You only think it is because you are taking my argument, trying to fit the terms of it into your different subject, and argue from there. Once again, whether people use the term traitor often or not is irrelevant. It is about the definition of words.
you should write a book about it. oh wait, you have, here ...
The dictionary describes the valid usages. It does not prescribe which usage you choose to use in your sentence. That is up to you as the claimant. And those who interpret your words will consider the meaning of the usages and how they are normally applied in the English language and decide, via context, which one you likely meant. If more disambiguation is required, the interpreter must ask a question.
So, when speaking of the disloyal sports fan (call him Ralph), if someone claims that he is a traitor, the interpretation can be that he has betrayed a trust or that he has committed treason. If the sentence "Ralph is a traitor" is all one has to go on then one could (but normally would not need to) ask a question such as: "Do you mean that Ralph committed treason?". The next response will clarify the usage. The response of "No, he has not committed treason (here, using the most common, natural usage of treason ... treason1) clears this up.
This is all that is required (even when taking this to a silly level). The objective interpreter now knows that the sentence "Ralph is a traitor" applies traitor1 and thus means "Ralph betrayed another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty". (In this case, Ralph betrayed the other local team supporters.)
You (Drakk) would now likely follow up with: But (ahah!!) betraying another's trust can be considered treason (treason2) so you are really saying that Ralph committed treason". The response to that sophistry is: "No, I would not use the word 'treason' for being disloyal to our home team; most English speaking people reserve the emotive word 'treason' to refer to the crime that is typically committed by a national official against the people".
Now you (Drakk) are free to state that "Ralph committed treason". You can employ treason2 in an unusual fashion because the dictionary has noted that treason2 is an actual usage of the word 'treason'. But it would be quite strange for you to do so in this context.
To wit, when a person labels the disloyal sports fan Ralph a 'traitor', the natural, reasonable meaning is that Ralph has violated their trust that he would support the local team. Period. 'Treason' is not a word that would normally enter the picture.
So now let's use Trump as the example and assume that both the claimant and the interpreter (of the claim) understand that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.
The claim "Trump is a traitor" makes sense for both usages of 'traitor'. Not only did Trump betray a trust (violate his oath to preserve, protect and defend the CotUS) (attempt to violate the CotUS) (attempt to disenfranchise the electorate) but his actions match both usages of treason. So one could reasonably conclude that the claimant holds that Trump committed treason too. The natural next question would be "Do you mean that Trump committed treason?". In this case, a helpful answer would be something like "Trump has not been found guilty of the crime of treason, but I believe his acts were treason". This now clarifies that the claimant holds Trump to be a traitor who committed treason, but recognizes that Trump has not been legally found guilty of the crime of treason.
That really should be the end of it. The claim is perfectly sound in terms of the English language and is offering an opinion of Trump's actions based on the facts. It does not falsely claim that Trump has been found guilty of the crime of treason.
Looks like it needs to be read again.
I know you aren't going to give a damn about what I say here, but others will so...
The reason I am going on about this, why I'm defending what I am saying here so hard, is that I believe words matter. In the last century, people's vocabulary IQ increased. It is now decreasing. Worse, people are intentionally misapplying words to mean something other than what they actually do.
Take the word hate , for instance. People, most often from the radical Left, know what it means and intend that meaning but can't hide the fact that the context in which they use it indicates that it is simply a label they use for anyone who speaks against their position. They are intentionally misusing the word hate for social engineering purposes. That is, to condition the public to think they want them to by manipulating the actual meaning of the word. The same goes for any word that includes phobia . If dictionaries reflect this new usage, hate will have a new entry that defines it as " someone who disagrees with someone else's position, especially politically " or words to that effect. That would be a travesty.
Concerning traitor and treason , it's common to be miffed at someone who goes with another team or quits a job in order to work for a competitor, but most people, other than the one being accused, translate such accusations as "I'm unhappy with what you did", not that the person is a traitor in the actual meaning of the word. The reaction by the one being accused is usually pretty different because that person has the actual meaning of traitor in mind and goes about defending themselves because of it. They will point out they have no obligation to stick with a team or a particular employer. That is, "I have committed no treason ".
In the end, people don't understand how important it is to use words correctly and therefore often don't stop to consider just what it is they've actually said ( 2.1.172 for instance). If someone calls someone else a traitor for going with another team, they don't understand that the basis for the charge has to be based on something. You can't call someone a liar in truth unless that person has in fact lied. Such a person would be a traitor to truth and the treason would be the lie. You can't call someone a traitor in truth unless there is an act of betrayal and that act is the treason . Treason is a very serious word because traitor is supposed to be a very serious word. That is why no one wants to be labeled a traitor .
If you have a problem with my going on about this, then the solution is simple. Ignore the conversation.
I agree with everything you said prior to this paragraph. Nothing I've said goes against it.
What I disagree with in this paragraph is that it's not that it can be considered treason , it is treason by definition. Since it is by definition it can't be sophistry without calling the dictionary sophistry.
My response to this is that even though I think you are correct if such a question (the one implied by your example here) were asked of people, such a response would be because they have not thought about just what a traitor actually is. That is, their vocabulary IQ is so low, or they have been trained by casually improper use of a word that they just keep using it without any real consideration of just what it means. That is, when using traitor in your sports example, they don't realize that they are accusing the other person of some crime. The one labeled a traitor certainly has a much keener awareness of just what a traitor is, though, and goes about defending their decision on those grounds. They will say they have no duty or obligation to stick with any particular team and the act of switching sides is not a crime. That person is not likely to think to use the word treason, likely because they only know traitor from casual usage and never actually looked at what the word means, but that is what the crime would be.
In other words, people don't think very deeply about what they say or what the words actually mean.
That is correct. People do not usually talk that way, although it does occur.
Regardless, that people often use the term traitor while seldom involving the term treason is true, it isn't because it doesn't apply, but because they haven't fully considered what a traitor is. Someone who insists someone else is an actual traitor for going with another sports team obviously doesn't know what an actual traitor is, else they are simply expressing extreme dissatisfaction with the other person's choice. It can't be any other way because the charge of traitor implies a crime of some sort. That is, they did something wrong or unethical. What, exactly? Whatever it was is the treason, even if they don't use that word, because the charge has to be based on something.
Your argument is simply that the word treason wasn't mentioned and since it wasn't, it doesn't apply. That makes as much sense as claiming that someone is a liar without using the word lied means that the accuser wasn't thinking the accused actually lied. The label liar implies that the person lied, so doesn't need to be mentioned. With traitor , they often just throw it out there without considering that the word implies treason by definition in the same way liar implies lying .
Again, true. Yet misses the point of this conversation. Is traitor and treason two sides of the same coin? That treason is not normally a part of the conversation doesn't mean the term is not applicable. It simply means they aren't using it. By using traitor , they are implying some sort of wrongdoing. Some sort of crime. That is inarguable unless one robs traitor of any meaning at all. Whatever that implied wrongdoing or crime is, is treason by definition. It is what they are talking about, even if they don't realize it. If they say "No, I don't mean treason ", then they don't mean traitor .
You presume that every act of betrayal is necessarily considered treason in the English language. In reality treason is considered to be an act of betrayal but not every act of betrayal is treason.
You have assumed a symmetric relationship between treason and "betrayal of trust" that does not exist. There are many words that are used in English to convey the notion of a "betrayal of trust" including:
"Betrayal of trust" is a general concept mapped to a variety of connotations. It does NOT always translate into 'treason'.
This is why Ralph (the disloyal sports fan) can be recognized as betraying the trust of his buddies who support their local team but his betrayal would not be considered treason (i.e. the label 'treason' would not likely be used). Not every act of betrayal is considered (by English speakers) to be treason.
Similarly there are myriad labels in English to connote the concept of someone who has betrayed a trust (e.g. traitor, betrayer, deceiver, turncoat, back-stabber, double-crosser, defector, sell-out, snake, ...). Thus "betrayer of trust" does not necessarily mean that one is properly considered a traitor or has committed treason. Meaning, there is no requirement that Ralph be deemed a traitor ... he might be deemed a mere defector for example. This too is a general concept mapped to various connotations and the intended meaning is resolved through context.
Do you not realize that every term you list here is a synonym of treason? That means, used in the context of traitor, every one of those terms is treason by another name. If I use the term treason in connection with traitor, I could just as well use disloyalty and mean exactly the same thing. In fact, if one wanted to drive the point home on what a traitor actually is in its fullness, one would include every single one of them to communicate just what a traitor is.
I think what you mean is that treason is not the only word that can communicate the concept, as the concept, whatever word you use to identify it, always remains the same. If you don't think that is true, state a term that is not a synonym of treason that communicates what it is that makes a traitor a traitor.
Do you understand that a synonym is a word with a similar meaning, not necessarily the identical meaning? Synonyms have similar meaning but with semantic nuance (a key reason why these words even exist). These words are not cognate synonyms or absolute synonyms (exact meaning). They are normal synonyms which have similar meaning.
Now factor that information in and reread my post.
Not equivalent. While a defector can be a traitor, it isn't necessarily so. If a Republican announces that he is quitting the Republican party to become a Democrat, that is a public termination of whatever duty or trust he owes to the Republican party. The Republican party has no expectation of trust or duty from that individual any longer. They may still consider him a traitor but, strictly speaking, he would not be.
He would be a traitor if he worked for the good of the Democratic party and its goals and against Republican goals while still claiming to be Republican, even if he defected once discovered, as he had already essentially done so.
Why did you add "any longer"? That suggests that you realize that the Republican party did indeed have an expectation of loyalty (which certainly you understand they would).
Someone leaving a political party to join the opposition has been disloyal / has betrayed a trust (the expectation of loyalty). Surely you do not believe that party members do not see this as a betrayal.
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
Synonym
[✘]
Did you read the 'near the same part'?
Do you recognize that this refers to the idea that synonyms are normally words that are similar ( same basic concept ) in meaning but may have semantic nuances which cause them to have different meanings?
Exactly. That was my point and why I posited the question .. According to the logic espoused by your commentary:
Language is amorphous and constantly changing. Nothing is "fixed": That is how the new meanings arise. Context and audience are key to the understanding of the meaning of a word as much as dictionary definitions.
So, all of your argumentation up to this point (which is probably purely performative) can be boiled down to, "Nuh-uhh," and, "Because I said so."
I will leave you with a paraphrase of remark that Bill Clinton made,"...that would depend on what the definition of "is" is."
Good Day.
(sigh) What I was replying to...
You completely missed the point. New words come into being or old words gain new meanings, definitions do not.
The definition that refers to any of numerous small rodents (as of the genus Mus) with pointed snout, rather small ears, elongated body, and slender tail is mouse. Now that mouse gained a new meaning, a small mobile manual device that controls movement of the cursor and selection of functions on a computer display, it does not change the definition of mouse that refers to the rodent. The computer device's definition and the rodent definition will not change if another meaning for mouse arises. There will simply be a new definition that won't change for whatever it refers to.
Definitions are anchors for words so that meaning remains understandable over time. If an English speaker from the 1700's is speaking of a mouse in his pantry, we know what he is talking about because the meaning of mouse for that context doesn't change. Even if, today, we no longer referred to those rodents as a mouse and we only knew it as a gleek, the definition of mouse from the 1700's would still be the same. That is because even though we ourselves don't refer to such rodents as a mouse, it is highly likely that we will encounter the word. If we don't know what it means, we'll look it up and the definition will be there, unchanged, except to indicate it is now referred to as a gleek.
That is what I mean by definitions do not change, even though new words come into being or old words gain new, or more accurately, additional definitions.
... but facts and voluminous amounts of evidence doesn't.
this entire conversation is still here only because of my respect for some of the participants ...
It is true that some words (e.g. mouse) have usages (e.g. the biological usage) that are bound to the physical world (i.e. not mere concepts) and are unlikely to change (in our lifetimes).
But it is also true that usages of words are updated ... that the actual language of the usage is updated to stay current with actual language usage. For example we have changes reflecting modern culture:
But there are also changes based on literally gaining a deeper understanding of that which we are defining. I think the scientific usage of atom is a fine example:
I think the most interesting may be the history of the word "nice". It was derived from the Latin for "without knowledge", which was its original meaning. The meaning evolved through the centuries to the current usage.
Yes. What did you think the following meant?
In any case, I assume your point continues to be
They don't have to be cognate synonyms. They just have to be nearly the same so that, in context, they refer to the same concept. Synonyms are partly there to help understand the keyword they are synonyms because, as I said earlier, dictionaries are not meant to be exhaustive. Because of that, definitions are not exactly precise. That is, you will find a variety of different ways to define perfidy from dictionary to dictionary.
In fact, synonyms are used in the definition itself to define the keyword perfidy . One uses betrayal, two use disloyal, two use treachery, two use faithless. Not exactly precise. That's because concepts aren't precise.
So, you're correct that "Synonyms have similar meaning but with semantic nuance (a key reason why these words even exist). These words are not cognate synonyms or absolute synonyms (exact meaning). They are normal synonyms which have similar meaning" but that does not mean what you appear to be implying. That is, synonyms can't be taken to be exact matches of the keyword. We don't have to. They just have to refer to the same concept and the evidence for that is they use those synonyms in the definition itself to define the keyword. And that is why those synonyms you listed can take the place of t reason in a sentence involving traitor and mean the exact same thing as treason .
Traitor is the context and perfidy obviously refers to whatever act that made the person a traitor. Further, your opinion is that Trump is a traitor guilty of treason. Do you think there is anything in that list of synonyms you provided that doesn't apply to Trump? Do not those synonyms expand the meaning of treason in your mind beyond a simple definition of breaking the law? Having studied the word treason seven ways to Sunday by now, I know it does that for me. It tells me just how serious, how horrible the concept of treason actually is.
To me, that is what synonyms should do and I believe they do exactly that.
Have you ever been writing something and thought "Do I really know what that word I just typed really means?" I do it all the time. I always look at the synonyms as well. I find that I knew what the word meant, generally, but I often find that it has a depth I had never appreciated before. Maybe I should have been a lexicographer.
I don't see how you would consider this an update to the keyword, volunteer. All that happened was a change in how a person is referenced, which doesn't change the definition of the keyword at all. That is, how a person is referred to is irrelevant to the definition. Not really an update.
This is a better example to show that I may not entirely correct in what I said. Merriam-Webster retains the Greek version and one or two others but the rest do not. I will have to look at it more to see if this represents actual updates to already-in-place definitions or that the other meanings have simply been obsoleted. In any case, I can see that, in the realm of science, some definitions might indeed change.
On a side note, the Greeks weren't wrong. For them, the atom is the indivisible, smallest possible matter. They could hardly know that we would take their word and apply it to something that turned out to be divisible. Yay, Greeks!
Not sure what your point is in this post.
Do you recognize that the scientific usage for the word 'atom' has been (and likely will continue to be) updated over time?
That is the point I made ... that dictionaries do add new usages, retire (make archaic) obsolete usages, change the ordering of usages, and update the definition of usages.
It would be 'nice' (pun intended) if people were to understand that natural language evolves and that dictionaries strive to describe the current usages of each English word. That their main intent is to help disambiguate language. And that the usages reflect the various ways (sometimes contradictory) in which a word is used by English speakers. But for this to work, people must understand what dictionaries are doing and then make an attempt to honestly interpret what they offer.
On a related note, it should not take months of dialogue to get some to understand that labeling Trump a traitor is reasonable given his violation of his oath of office, his attempts to subvert the CotUS, and his attempts to disenfranchise the electorate ... all using fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. Given he did this as a sitting PotUS and it adversely affected the nation itself, it seems to me that this is a very strong justification that labeling him a traitor is a proper use of the word. And though Trump was never tried and found guilty of the crime of treason, given what he did, it sure seems to me that he did in fact commit treason as well.
Etymology is the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meaning has changed over time. I have an excellent etymological dictionary that I refer to occasionally because I have always found it to be a fascinating topic. Actually, I have several shelves at my home library of bilingual English dictionaries of many languages that I have collected from all over the world.
Without a doubt.
I'm sorry, I just have about had it with the 'rights' endless excuse extraordinaire, where they deny they can't fly in the face of reasons exceeding any, every, and completely ALL of that which Trump does trespass, attempts to trespass, does pass, attempts to pass, when he's not Russian, and every udderly ridiculous conspiracy , where as asses, conspire to B leave Trumps' Knot fairy tails told, escapes the stated in bold derrdashing to and Af Fro, to induce the blame fall, on the lefts receiver so as to take the toll, and create the HATE, he so demonstrably examplified with hair that died via LIES right off the top, of his head less than full. And to that we have come with know e z passes, ore E Z Double Wide ers as e z peas z eee easily can support & retort norms and others normed, as in to make nor-male,a gal, Putin out the carrots that Bugs eyes who have it, could/would likely claw them outside the ring inn an attempt to outstay away their wazes that need get waze meaner, than nnot reply back width an accropode to retard the waves of those waze, goodbye , cause think Trump is not won or armed, induced nutritional sentimeant to see how incitemeant from grounds low, but changing Times, facebook schills will grow, spreading Lies about anything they don't seem to know. And about all asz all can be, will display that about how embarrassments not always compelled by needs or the right to know, Not when true colors, shine with which those that had let it, be shown. All will have groan, but how many will grow a loan with know interests for how some how a mutant manned planet, has grown, ore not grown so igknorant az fck, that they could easily be eliminated, unlike the so many, apparently who will remain,and these denier's about and through, R liars with a reality check, so long over due....
I'm sure hoping some of TiG's opponents here, don't raid this Taco stand and get all Tequiled up, for the ceiling of the fate, can never be too late, when it comes earlier than the correct date, the first of men e, Trumpers swill hate, and a hate that when raisin, can rize ... Y does this party not see how they could bug,with some serious numbers that mite even go subcutaneous contemporaneous, and that might alter our neighbor hoods , and that singer could sing, just knot shore the kids will be anything other than the insects they have become,and when they ask for the meaning to be undone, from the Etymology of words that crawl right up your body, to the parasitic RFK style of worming out of ones brain comes a Joe Rogain subtracting with pseudo knowledge that knowingly prefers them to not knowingly avoid , asz-zany college experimental fat fact fckn checker, playing Chess off the infested bed of nails that will screw down our treasured chestnutz that weight in bred lines mite just crack erh, the/to wip the worker bees into getting off the power of that which spelt out becomes quite a switch, from the heir triggered from the slightest, cause, gotta wonder bred, and said ,which other words will remain so reliant on that of other, Cause feel bad for Tig, when the psycho ill sew watt logic, is deemed required, asz, you're forced to hire exterminators just to monitor the studies performed now in once hallowed halls, where Republicans must now be run by Entomologists that mean different definitions that R's, spelled the in same weigh, the crazy in sane way..,
a complete maga vocabulary is available on a free pamphlet, included with every purchase of trump merch ...
apparently, illegal aliens with white skin and billions aren't a threat to the US ...
Maybe a defamation lawsuit is in he works. It would take an enormous punitive damages award to hold Musk accountable. I say, go get him!
trumpsters think they can't be held accountable for anything now ...
proven by some recent exits ...
Too bad it doesn’t work on these people. They lose in court and go right back to lying about people.
That's true.
Musk spouts nearly as much nonsense as his idol
To be fair, one is much older and so he has a head start.
One of the worst aspects of Trumpism is reckless disregard for destroying decent people's lives...
Trump and Musk are two narcissists cut from the same cloth. They have an addiction to the social media sites they own, and every post they make is to tear someone else down, usually with invented or exaggerated bullshit.
While I don't consider LtCol Vindmann a traitor in the strictest legal sense of the word, I do feel he was guilty of showing very poor judgement, conduct unbecoming of an officer, and going above and outsidea the chain of command and to the media. Just the opinion of a retired vet with 20 years of honorable service to his country.
I disagree with your misinformed comment.
[✘]
The rest of this thread was removed for no value.
wait a minute, some on this thread seem to \be explaining that you cannot just determine their opinion, via your or hour opinion, is a point you can't be making and a winning unless these special chosen few, decide on benevolence to and 4 you, and they allow your silly monitering to be deemed legitimate, like in some sort of a Christmas Story, where Ralpjhie gets a little weird and gory when he misinterprets legitimate to being obscene as Leg-getintimate withthe item mom detests and dad seems to like best, that made ill legitimate instrument that would and could yield lite brite like a Miller, but Ralphie claims the leg is hollow and less filling, while humpin it like like a wild ole in heat seekin missile sihighin silo having a sail on secret santa heavy panta under garments for varmints like armadillon when armagettin it
So please don't shoot the humble messinger, cause eye see them possibly just messin with how much they actually do know about Trump the river called D nial
but , just did a nitros balloon, and set it on fire trial, so we will see if we can laugh about this later, when the cows come home, cause theyre the first to knopw hjow much bovine excrement the Trumpers will have to show to win and or place, but seriously, a serious disgrace they a tempt to make of this place, just to bite off their brain, to save a little face...