Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I, Claudius;The Rise of Vir; The parallels

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Andrew_Swallow
    replied
    Originally posted by NotKosh
    Travelling to a country we are at war with and giving aid to the enemy is treason. That is not free speech. Actions are not speech, despite decades of "interpretation" of the Constitution. The bit about the war not being a declared war has me wondering. I can't believe it wasn't recognized as a war at some time though...
    I can. In simple terms the UN has banned war. It cannot stop wars being fought but it can make declaring war embarrassing.

    The modern equivalent of a declaration of war is getting a UN Security Council Resolution authorising "force".

    Declarations of War are made between two countries and at a level above their constitutions.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotKosh
    replied
    Originally posted by SpooRancher
    I'm sorry. I thought one of the wonderful things about this country was that it was not considered treasonous to voice your conscience and act upon it. Silly me. I wonder what will happen to all those of us who have voiced opposition to Ascroft and the Patriot Act?

    Will they still be calling us traitors in 30 years?
    Travelling to a country we are at war with and giving aid to the enemy is treason. That is not free speech. Actions are not speech, despite decades of "interpretation" of the Constitution. The bit about the war not being a declared war has me wondering. I can't believe it wasn't recognized as a war at some time though...
    Last edited by NotKosh; 04-18-2005, 09:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • grumbler
    replied
    Everyone: you are carrying the joke too far. Just say "haha" and move on.

    Leave a comment:


  • SpooRancher
    replied
    Now here is an interesting question. Since Congress never declared war in Viet Nam, they were not "officially" our enemies. So, then, is it treasonous to do anything in relation to someone who is "not" an "enemy"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrew_Swallow
    replied
    From Article 3 of the US constitution

    http://www.fathermag.com/cgi-bin/pageprint.pl
    # SECTION 3.

    Treason defined. Proof of. Punishment

    1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

    Leave a comment:


  • SpooRancher
    replied
    Originally posted by NotKosh
    There isn't a statute of limitations on Treason, is there?
    I'm sorry. I thought one of the wonderful things about this country was that it was not considered treasonous to voice your conscience and act upon it. Silly me. I wonder what will happen to all those of us who have voiced opposition to Ascroft and the Patriot Act?

    Will they still be calling us traitors in 30 years?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotKosh
    replied
    There isn't a statute of limitations on Treason, is there?

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrew_Swallow
    replied
    Originally posted by grumbler
    Q: What is the main difference between George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jane Fonda?

    A: Jane Fonda DID go to Vietnam!
    And was on the winning side.

    Should we appoint her to the selection board for generals?

    Leave a comment:


  • grumbler
    replied
    Originally posted by NotKosh
    I'll take Belisarius over Caesar.
    But he DID say "Roman Republic" so Belisarius does not qualify. Maybe pre-Cleopatra Marc Antony was as good, among the choices we could make. Also, though, an illustrationn of Joe's point about the "military man" not starting from the lowest ranks, but rather using military fame to advance a civil career.

    Q: What is the main difference between George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jane Fonda?

    A: Jane Fonda DID go to Vietnam!

    Leave a comment:


  • modernmajorgeneral
    replied
    ^^^^^^^^^^
    Don't forget Narses. He really had some balls on him.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotKosh
    replied
    Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino
    And Gaius Julius Caesar the Dictator, the greatest general the Republic produced, was never a military man at all.
    I'll take Belisarius over Caesar.

    Leave a comment:


  • grumbler
    replied
    Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino
    Once again, I don't seem to have been clear. I never said that "Vir" meant "Everyman". Never. Not once. Not even a little bit. I said the word meant "Man" and that by ready extension this could be understood as indicating Vir's status as an "Everyman" character. I made the comment because JMS himself noted Vir's everyman status when discussing the title "Sic Transit Vir" and its multiple layers of meaning. So I think JMS knew what he was doing. And so did I.
    I thought the deal was that if you are going to cite JMS on this site for a specific interpretation, you gave a quote from JMS. Your assertion that JMS discussed Vir's "everyman" charactor when discussing the title and its multiple levels of meaning is all well and good, except that I cannot find anything by JMS that actually says what you insist he was saying. No cites for "everyman" that mentions Vir at all (only Zack). No combinations of "every," "man" and "Vir" that support your contention at all. A thorough reading of the episode notes on The lurker's Guide? Nada. Nothing, in fact, that contradicts my more suble reading of the title (that Vir was no longer "the everyman," but "the virtuous man"). Maybe that didn't penetrate the fog that seems to have grown up around this topic. Perhaps if you let JMS speak more for himself, and spoke less in his name, we would not have these little misunderstandings. Feel free, though, to correct my misunderstandings with direct quotes from JMS on the episode as opposed to interpretations or mere assertions.

    As did the English solider who, forced to send a message via a telegraph wire he knew as tapped by the enemy, managed to let his superiors know that he had driven the enemy from Sind by transmitting the single word peccavi - "I have sinned."
    Ouch! One of the most famous episodes in British colonial history has been reduced, in the transmission amongst those not caring about original sources, to this fable?

    The actual story is that General Charles Napier (not some anonymous soldier) was sent to command the troops of the Bombay Presidency, under orders from Queen Victoria to regard the native leaders in India as sovereign, and believing himself that any attack on Sind was merely in the service of the contemptable (to him) East india Company. Despite his admiration for Sind and his (and his Queen's) belief that the Raj was already larger than was good for Britain, he felt compelled by circumstances in the summer of 1842 to settle affairs in Sind by force and annex Sind to the Raj. It was the British magazine "Punch" and not Sir Charles himself, who attributed the notation ""Peccavi"--"I have sinned" to the conquest.

    As in the case of "JMS himself" it is useful to one's credibility to at least get the outlines of the story correct.

    In sum, only one who does not understand what "vir' means in latin would assume that it could, "by ready extension," be translated as "everyman." Whether JMS himself did or did not understand that (the latter, if your private understanding of his mindset at the time is accurate), a "vir" is an exceptional man, which leads to a truer understanding of what it was that caused Vir so much trouble in the episode bearing his name.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joseph DeMartino
    replied
    Originally posted by Redrake
    I have an advice for you. Forget the crap about "Romany".
    Yeah, there weren't a lot of Gypsies left anywhere after old Adolph got through with them. So how about cutting them a little slack, eh?

    Originally posted by Redrake
    Yes, that fact that all the romance languages come from latin don't matter much these days, but in all these countries latin is learned in schools and highschools.
    And oddly enough Latin is fequently taught in schools even in the English-speaking world. (Until quite recently most good American public high schools taught it, and nearly all the private ones.) You can no longer assume that any educated Englishman knows Latin as you once could*, but probably more know at least of a bit of it than not.

    Now, as to whether JMS understood this distinction when he decided that "Vir" was a better charactor name than "Homo" (or whether he decided this for other reasons) is not clear...


    Once again, I don't seem to have been clear. I never said that "Vir" meant "Everyman". Never. Not once. Not even a little bit. I said the word meant "Man" and that by ready extension this could be understood as indicating Vir's status as an "Everyman" character. I made the comment because JMS himself noted Vir's everyman status when discussing the title "Sic Transit Vir" and its multiple layers of meaning. So I think JMS knew what he was doing. And so did I.

    Joe

    * As did the English solider who, forced to send a message via a telegraph wire he knew as tapped by the enemy, managed to let his superiors know that he had driven the enemy from Sind by transmitting the single word peccavi - "I have sinned."
    Last edited by Joseph DeMartino; 04-01-2005, 02:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • grumbler
    replied
    Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino
    Yes, that was what I was driving at...

    ...but apparently not clearly enough. The "similarly" refers back to the distinction between "anthropos" and "andros" in Greek I discussed in the previous paragraph, which addressed the "he-man" sense of both terms more explicitly.
    Yeah, I see that I did not make myself clear enough, either. The notion that "vir" is translatable as "everyman" is where you err, I think. "Vir" is generally used rather than "homo" where the attributes of the man are admirable or exceptional, not where they are ordinary and unexceptional.

    So, while I agree that "hero" is probably overstating the meaning of "vir" it is probably a lot closer than "everyman."

    Now, as to whether JMS understood this distinction when he decided that "Vir" was a better charactor name than "Homo" (or whether he decided this for other reasons) is not clear, but I think the fact that "Sic transit vir" can be translated as "that is what happens to a virtuous man" is probably an indication that he did. "That is what happens to every man" does not fit the episode nearly as well because it is precisely Vir's virtues that get him into trouble and everyman would have sailed through the episode happily.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redrake
    replied
    Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino
    Oh, well that settles it then. You found a book that supports your definition.

    Which dictionary, by the way?

    BTW, French, Spanish, and Italian are also based on Latin just like Romanian (or Romany), all are "Romance" (Roman) languages- but they aren't the same as Latin, so that doesn't mean all that much. English isn't Latin-based, it is a Germanic tongue, but it has a fair amount of latinate volcabulary, which entered the language mostly via Norman French after the Conquest.
    I have an advice for you. Forget the crap about "Romany". I don't know where you heard it, but gypsies have nothing to do with romanians (except maybe that they make 6% of the population). Our language is latin-based, our grammar is the closest to latin of all romance languages. Gypsy langauge (or Romany, how they called it) is related with indian language.
    Yes, that fact that all the romance languages come from latin don't matter much these days, but in all these countries latin is learned in schools and highschools.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X