NationStates Jolt Archive

This was in my US Government and Politcs lecture today. We were just quickly going over the events leading up to the declaration of independence. And to illustrate what must have gone through the revolutionaries and the huge gamble that it was the lecturer ask us "By show of hands, who here would commit treason?" Now me not thinking immediately puts hand up (slight exagerration, I did the non-commital 'raise hand and point pen upwards' thing* common amounst students rather then the wave hand widely in the air like a classroom geek), only to realise I am the only one. Only to be followed by tutting from a few others (significant amount), where I realised I was the only one who would.

Next question, "who would dare plan a revolution against the government." Well I didn't answer that because a) I felt it was already a given and b) attracting the attention of everyone in the room for a second would just be attention seeking.

But honestly the youth of today, if their not prepared to commit treason what are they prepared to do?



*you know, to be cool.

hmm....in a womens studies lecture i was pursuaded to go to with a friend, they were talking about the social differences between men and women....

in womens studies, there were 2 guys out of about 60 students.

So, the lecturer (a woman...surprisingly) says "Men are....?" waiting for an answer

within about a second "better drivers"

got a clap from the guys though

See in my mind there's a difference between revolution and treason though.

Treason to me means selling out your nation to another country purely out of self-interest such as money, not because you feel your government is tyrannical. That is bad.

A revolution against a government you feel is in the wrong and in which there is no other way to remove them from power is something else.

Next question, "who would dare plan a revolution against the government." Well I didn't answer that because a) I felt it was already a given and b) attracting the attention of everyone in the room for a second would just be attention seeking.
You should have also answered that. Because it's a law does not mean it is right, and I believe firmly that laws do not equate what is right or just. Take Gandhi for instance, he was pretty treasonous.

This was in my US Government and Politcs lecture today. We were just quickly going over the events leading up to the declaration of independence. And to illustrate what must have gone through the revolutionaries and the huge gamble that it was the lecturer ask us "By show of hands, who here would commit treason?" Now me not thinking immediately puts hand up (slight exagerration, I did the non-commital 'raise hand and point pen upwards' thing* common amounst students rather then the wave hand widely in the air like a classroom geek), only to realise I am the only one. Only to be followed by tutting from a few others (significant amount), where I realised I was the only one who would.

Next question, "who would dare plan a revolution against the government." Well I didn't answer that because a) I felt it was already a given and b) attracting the attention of everyone in the room for a second would just be attention seeking.

But honestly the youth of today, if their not prepared to commit treason what are they prepared to do?



*you know, to be cool.

I wouldn't worry, the Oxford Student union once resolved (in the 30s) that it was better to betray ones country than ones friend, and presented the resolution to Churchill when he visited. (I have no doubt that he exacted revenge on the ringleaders during the War however).

As to embarrising yourself, when I was a 1L (law school) I was sitting in property law - unprepared as usual - when the Prof called on me. He asked, "Mr. [Lacadaemon] would you care to explain the signifigance of the rule against perpetuities to the case in hand?" I suppose he noticed that I was semi-dozing, it being friday afternoon.

Naturally, I had no idea which case was even being discussed, but being a little tipsy from lunch, instead of mumbling the usual embarrased "not prepared," I confidently said, "These aren't the droids you are looking for, move along."

The whole class erupted in laughter, and the poor old proof had no idea what I was on about. Needless to say, he paused for a moment and then just pretended the whole thing had never happened, moving quickly to his nezt victim.

After that, whenever I was sober, we couldn't look at each other without embarrasment.

See in my mind there's a difference between revolution and treason though.

Treason to me means selling out your nation to another country purely out of self-interest such as money, not because you feel your government is tyrannical. That is bad.

A revolution against a government you feel is in the wrong and in which there is no other way to remove them from power is something else.
Well to put it in context of the lecture, the early revolutionaries were treasonous and it was meant in that sence rather then selling you country down the river for personal gain.* Which I wouldn't do, I may have no loyalty for this country, but I have non for others either.

*And we [Britain] have had some fairly stupid treason laws imo.

You should have also answered that. Because it's a law does not mean it is right, and I believe firmly that laws do not equate what is right or just. Take Gandhi for instance, he was pretty treasonous.
Well a whisper from my friend Don't you dare answer that also helped. But meh, like I said it was already treated as a given, and a few others thought that treason against the crown was bad but revolution was OK.

I wouldn't worry, the Oxford Student union once resolved (in the 30s) that it was better to betray ones country than ones friend,


Well I do believe that, I do have loyalty to my friends. Just not to some little old aristocrat or jumped up civil servant.

Meh, I'm unpatriotic, I'm loyal to friends and family though.

Well a whisper from my friend Don't you dare answer that also helped. But meh, like I said it was already treated as a given, and a few others thought that treason against the crown was bad but revolution was OK.
Hell, I would've gotten into an argument with the whole class until the teacher said "Ok, that's enough of that for now, let's move on." But I am quite contentious with my beliefs, and stand up for them whenever given the proper chance.

he, the only thing that makes me dislike someoen in a lecture hall is when they suggest something and the prof says "oh wow, that is a good question, i think i'll put that on the next assignment"

oh, or the one kid who asked 10 questions on average in a one hour lecture.

Hell, I would've gotten into an argument with the whole class until the teacher said "Ok, that's enough of that for now, let's move on." But I am quite contentious with my beliefs, and stand up for them whenever given the proper chance.
Yeah well, maybe. But I was tired during the lecture (hence my almost robotic response to the original question, usually I try and think about things). And well there are around 90 people doing the module (not that they were all there, but still not odds I fancy.)

he, the only thing that makes me dislike someoen in a lecture hall is when they suggest something and the prof says "oh wow, that is a good question, i think i'll put that on the next assignment"

oh, or the one kid who asked 10 questions on average in a one hour lecture.

I hate both those guys. With a passion. They should be eliminated.

he, the only thing that makes me dislike someoen in a lecture hall is when they suggest something and the prof says "oh wow, that is a good question, i think i'll put that on the next assignment"

oh, or the one kid who asked 10 questions on average in a one hour lecture.
Luckily I don't have too many keeno's. And we don't really have assignments, just fixed essays we have to do.

This was in my US Government and Politcs lecture today. We were just quickly going over the events leading up to the declaration of independence. And to illustrate what must have gone through the revolutionaries and the huge gamble that it was the lecturer ask us "By show of hands, who here would commit treason?" Now me not thinking immediately puts hand up (slight exagerration, I did the non-commital 'raise hand and point pen upwards' thing* common amounst students rather then the wave hand widely in the air like a classroom geek), only to realise I am the only one. Only to be followed by tutting from a few others (significant amount), where I realised I was the only one who would.

Next question, "who would dare plan a revolution against the government." Well I didn't answer that because a) I felt it was already a given and b) attracting the attention of everyone in the room for a second would just be attention seeking.

But honestly the youth of today, if their not prepared to commit treason what are they prepared to do?



*you know, to be cool.

hey man that's not attention seeking that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. so if everyone else in the room doesn't like it then they can go suck it.

on the other hand, would you really eagerly commit treason? what if it was going to cost peoples' lives?

:sniper:

hey man that's not attention seeking that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. so if everyone else in the room doesn't like it then they can go suck it.

on the other hand, would you really eagerly commit treason? what if it was going to cost peoples' lives?

:sniper:
Well that post was partly tongue-in-cheek.

As I said after the main reason I didn't was a verbal warning from a friend, and like I said I was tired and just went along with it.

Also, in context it was treason against the crown rather then selling the country out to a foreign power.

Am I willing if it will cost other peoples lives?

Yes, if they are willing.

Am I willing to give my own life for what I believe, I would hope so. But ask me when I launch the revolution :p

A very good quote from an Elizabethan epigrammist, Sir John Harrington

Treason doth never prosper, whats the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason

Essentially he is saying that treason never prospers because when it succeds, the traitors have become the government and therefore will not want their actions defined as treason.

The fact remains though that it is still treason and I fully regard the American War of Independence as a treasonous act on the behalf of George Washington and the rebels. They were quite clearly acting in a treasonous manner by their violent rebellion against his Majesty George III and by their unlawful killing of his Majesties troops. Just because they succeded in their treason does not clear all the crimes. George Washington deserved to hung like the dog he was along with the rest of them.

Or you could just set a fire in HM dockyards.

A very good quote from an Elizabethan epigrammist, Sir John Harrington

Treason doth never prosper, whats the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason

Essentially he is saying that treason never prospers because when it succeds, the traitors have become the government and therefore will not want their actions defined as treason.

The fact remains though that it is still treason and I fully regard the American War of Independence as a treasonous act on the behalf of George Washington and the rebels. They were quite clearly acting in a treasonous manner by their violent rebellion against his Majesty George III and by their unlawful killing of his Majesties troops. Just because they succeded in their treason does not clear all the crimes. George Washington deserved to hung like the dog he was along with the rest of them.


Shouldn't you hand Tony Blair first though? After all he is still alive.

Tony Blair hasn't acted in a manner defined as treaonous whereas George Washington murdered all our troops, murdered or drove out the 1/3 of Americans who supported the British, attacked British interests, set up an entirely new regime on British property and stole British resources. Tony Blair is Prime Minister and hasn't done any of those things - he has a constitutional right to send soldiers to war and to use British resources. He acts in the way which he believes is best for his country (whereas as George W. acts in the way that benefits himself, his family and his business friends, the Saudis and the Bin Ladens).

See in my mind there's a difference between revolution and treason though.
Of course, as someone once said

Treason is never successful, for if it is, none dare call it treason.

Shouldn't you hand Tony Blair first though? After all he is still alive.


I'm guesing you mean hang, I'd rather not hand tony blair (ew icky).

Technically,I beleive NBG is right, its funny, we tend to agree an alot of things I feel :p Anyways, I still like to wonder what the americas would be like today had the US not won its war of independance.

Although I cannot condone the fact that the rebellion took place, I have to say that I can't, strictly speaking, disagree with the reasons for it - extortionate taxes, no parliamentary representation... When you think how different the world could be had British Lords not been so arrogant and short sighted it really does make you sigh and wonder...

Of course, as someone once said
Thank you, if I only knew so much about archaic epigram :)

(And thank you to New British Glory too, you helped sum up the type of treason I was talking about)

I believe the revolutionaries had a good reason to commit treason. They didn't want to be ruled by a prick that's an ocean away. I believe committing treason or revolting is only good when there is a just cause behind it. That's my two cents, thanks for listening.

Tony Blair hasn't acted in a manner defined as treaonous whereas George Washington murdered all our troops, murdered or drove out the 1/3 of Americans who supported the British, attacked British interests, set up an entirely new regime on British property and stole British resources. Tony Blair is Prime Minister and hasn't done any of those things - he has a constitutional right to send soldiers to war and to use British resources. He acts in the way which he believes is best for his country (whereas as George W. acts in the way that benefits himself, his family and his business friends, the Saudis and the Bin Ladens).

He, and his lackwit cohorts on the labour benches, trampled the British Constitution Sir. That is treason, anyway you cut it.

More to the point, should you not also demand the return of India and the rest to the Crown? Indeed, there are treason Indians alive today who took arms against England during World War II under the leadership of the despicable Subhas Chandra Bose. Should they not be sought out, and blown across the muzzle of a gun for their vile infamy.

Why worry about the dead Jackanape Washington, when there are still traitors living in our midst. Ken Livingston for example.

Now do you duty to the Crown Sir.

Luckily I don't have too many keeno's. And we don't really have assignments, just fixed essays we have to do.
i have 5 assignments due this week. 4 of them are due friday.

last week i had 4 assignments and a lab due. (this lab was bigger than lots of essays too... 8 pages, more than 2,000 words, calculations, diagrams, tables et c and it was still technically too short.)

He, and his lackwit cohorts on the labour benches, trampled the British Constitution Sir. That is treason, anyway you cut it.

More to the point, should you not also demand the return of India and the rest to the Crown? Indeed, there are treason Indians alive today who took arms against England during World War II under the leadership of the despicable Subhas Chandra Bose. Should they not be sought out, and blown across the muzzle of a gun for their vile infamy.

Why worry about the dead Jackanape Washington, when there are still traitors living in our midst. Ken Livingston for example.

Now do you duty to the Crown Sir.

I don't support Blair but I only think he does what he believes is right for the country: I might not believe it but I'm not in charge.

And I am afraid you're interpreting 'constitutionally' in far too an American sense - there is no actual British constitution which is why the system of Parliament and monarchy have been able to survive for so long - the system is very flexible. Generally when we refer to constitution in the UK we are referring to traditional aspects of government, such as the Lord Chancellor (damn Labour for trying to abolish that post - they failed however because of the excellent Lords). However governments have been acting 'unconstitionally' from 1688 onwards. Examples

George III appointing Pitt the Younger when Fox had the parliamentary majority.
The 1830 Reform Act
The 1868 Reform Act
The Repeal of the Corn Laws 1845
The 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts

All of these were changes to tradition but none of their perpetrators could ever be accused of treason - to do that you would be charging the most illustirous names in British history of treason.

Yes perhaps if you knew more about 'archaic epigrams' then you wouldn't go about the general forums, spraying your written junk in every direction.
Perhaps. But I hardly think it is a prerequisite for posting now (needless to say that it would be interesting).

But I don't get why you have a go at me considering:

1) 'Archaic epigram' is not a derogatory term.
2) I was thanking you.

Either that, or have a problem with me for some reason. :confused:

i have 5 assignments due this week. 4 of them are due friday.

last week i had 4 assignments and a lab due. (this lab was bigger than lots of essays too... 8 pages, more than 2,000 words, calculations, diagrams, tables et c and it was still technically too short.)
Another reason why am thankful that I don't do a science course.

Not that I do nowt. I have four seminars to read and prepare for as well as essays.

Perhaps. But I hardly think it is a prerequisite for posting now (needless to say that it would be interesting).

But I don't get why you have a go at me considering:

1) 'Archaic epigram' is not a derogatory term.
2) I was thanking you.

Either that, or have a problem with me for some reason. :confused:

Sorry I misinterpreted and you misued the term 'archaic' which is quirw derogatory

Sorry I misinterpreted and you misued the term 'archaic' which is quirw derogatory
Archaic?
Derogatory?
Main Entry: ar·cha·ic
Pronunciation: är-'kA-ik
Function: adjective
Etymology: French or Greek; French archaïque, from Greek archaïkos, from archaios
1 : having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time : ANTIQUATED <archaic legal traditions>
3 capitalized : of or belonging to the early or formative phases of a culture or a period of artistic development; especially : of or belonging to the period leading up to the classical period of Greek culture
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage
5 capitalized : of or relating to the period from about 8000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. and the North American cultures of that time
synonym see OLD
- ar·cha·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

It doesn't seem so to me...

Antiquidated, as in no longer relevant to this time period.

Another reason why am thankful that I don't do a science course.

Not that I do nowt. I have four seminars to read and prepare for as well as essays.
i like essays more than labs though. i can usually get by just thinking about it in the back of my mind for a while and then putting it all out on paper.

i think when i'm done this degree, i may start another bachelor's... a combined honours in philosophy and german. (i've already got a bunch of philosophy done and it interests me and at the rate i'm going with math, that's not going to do for a teachable, hence the german)

Sorry I misinterpreted and you misued the term 'archaic' which is quirw derogatory
Ahh, so we are all good

i like essays more than labs though. i can usually get by just thinking about it in the back of my mind for a while and then putting it all out on paper.

Ditto. But I'm not sure the way you have to do essay though

i think when i'm done this degree, i may start another bachelor's... a combined honours in philosophy and german. (i've already got a bunch of philosophy done and it interests me and at the rate i'm going with math, that's not going to do for a teachable, hence the german)

Good luck if you do then. :)

Ditto. But I'm not sure the way you have to do essay though

? i usually do essays in my philosophy classes, plus the labs themselves are like essays a little, except that you've got an abstract that's basically the introduction and a conclusion that's the same damn thing as the abstract basically. then the intro and discussion sections are very much like the body parts of essays, you hav eto organize your thoughts and present everything in a way that makes sense with what you're talking about in your lab (and do a pile of research first too) and well, the result section is basically just presenting the resutls.

Good luck if you do then. :)

i still haven't deceided yet, but since second degrees usually only take two years as opposed to four... i might just go for it.

All this reminds me of when I was being interviewed as part of my screening for my security clearance in the Army.

I was in a room with a guy in civilian clothes and a fancy badge who was asking me about friends and associates of mine from college. (Interrogators of low rank often don't wear their uniforms because they think the civilian clothes are more intimidating than a SPC rank.) He couldn't understand why a nice, card carrying member of the Young Republicans could have been sleeping with a member of the American Communist Party for almost two years. My initial response was along the lines of: "We both liked history, pizza, the same bands and movies. Plus she was good in bed."

He fumed about a bit, ranted about some other things, and then said he could see me marching on Washington to overthrow the government. He was really getting mad. Then I hit him with, "Of course I could do that if I had to. I swore an oath to do it if it comes to it."

Boy! He thought he had me then. I saw foam at the corners of his mouth, even. He told me I was not only not getting a clearance, but would be getting thrown out of the Army. Then I nailed him with, "Of course, so did you, but I see you're not smart enough to realize it." Raising my right hand I then said:

"I swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bare true faith and allegiance to the same..."

About then he left the room...

Twenty minutes or so later, a light colonel comes in trying hard not to smile. He tells me I really am my father's son, pats me on the back and says not to worry about the clearance. Turns out he knew my dad way back when. :) My questioner? I found out about a year later they took away his clearance and made him a file clerk. Seems he was a little bit unstable and reactionary to be trusted judging other's patriotism.

So could I be a traitor? You betchya. My hand would have been up there right along with yours.

I believe the revolutionaries had a good reason to commit treason. They didn't want to be ruled by a prick that's an ocean away.
Yes, we were protecting our markets. There's a surplus of unemployed pricks here and if we can occupy one of them as our chief executive that's all to the good.

Actually all that raised the Americans' ire here was that we thought that taxes should only be collected on a case by case emergency basis, not as a standard means by which to collect money. The belief was that if taxes were needed then that determination would be made by local representatives. We kept that tradition right up until the begining of the 20th century, but even then we could have set up the tax system as a system of dues paid by member states to the Federal Government rather than the IRS taxing citizens directly. Probably should have done it that way, stop all this nauseating talk about "tax and spend liberals" in Congress.

I believe committing treason or revolting is only good when there is a just cause behind it. That's my two cents, thanks for listening.
You're essentially saying treason is good sometimes, but only when it's good. If it isn't good then it's bad.

The difference between the two in real politik
Revolution = Your side wins.
Treason = Your side looses.

Sorry I misinterpreted and you misued the term 'archaic' which is quirw derogatory
¡Perdóname! Archaic is not derogatory in itself. It is only if you interpret it that way. Archaisms are not offensive.

Yeah well, maybe. But I was tired during the lecture (hence my almost robotic response to the original question, usually I try and think about things). And well there are around 90 people doing the module (not that they were all there, but still not odds I fancy.)

I wouldn't have been able to resist the temptation to simultaneously piss off that many people.

A revolution against a government you feel is in the wrong and in which there is no other way to remove them from power is something else.
Ah, but pretty much everyone can take issue in one form or another with the actions of their government. Who is to say that a revolutionary is a patriot and not a terrorist?

I wouldn't have been able to resist the temptation to simultaneously piss off that many people.
Well they were already pissed, any more would be overkill :D

I wouldn't worry, the Oxford Student union once resolved (in the 30s) that it was better to betray ones country than ones friend, and presented the resolution to Churchill when he visited. (I have no doubt that he exacted revenge on the ringleaders during the War however).


I think you mean the oxford union society. OUSU do shit all.