Friday, May 15, 2009

Daily Twitter

  • 18:34 What makes something treacherous? As opposed to promise-breaking or disloyalty, that is. #
  • 18:36 Album review: Abigail Williams, "In the Shadow of a Thousand Suns". Bits of Dimmu Borgir, Cradle of Filth, Borknagar. Not bad, just samey. #
  • 18:49 Album review: Amon Amarth, "With Oden On Our Side". HOW DO THEY KEEP GETTING BETTER!??!! #
  • 22:46 New rule: if you want to sing about manly things like riding into battle with your sword and shield, don't sing like an eight-year-old girl. #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter. Follow me at


Catelli said...

What makes something treacherous?Icy road covered in water...

ADHR said...

I know you're joking, but I think there might be something to that. Disloyalty doesn't seem to carry the idea of risk or danger that treachery does... hence why the metaphor extending it to roads works.

Catelli said...

Ah geez, now you're going to make me think. ;)

Treachery would involve great cost to the betrayed. (Its one of those words that is currently overused in our hyper-sensitive post 9/11 world).

Breaking a promise of little consequence wouldn't be treacherous. Allowing an assassin to slip through the gate you are guarding, ie breaking your oath of loyalty, is another story.

Its a matter of degree, as in the difference between a promise and an oath.

ADHR said...

I think that's basically right. Thinking further, though, you can betray an ideal, and it's hard to see how that can be understood as harm to the ideal. That might be a case of metaphorical hyperbole, I suppose -- really, you're being disloyal to the ideal (not sticking to it, despite supposed commitment), but we call it "betrayal" in order to draw attention to it.

Catelli said...

Wouldn't that be the difference between treachery and treason? Treachery affects an individual, and treason is to the state or the ideal? Or is the distinction between those terms something else?

I'm not sure, (and yeah I could go to wikictionary to find out.)

In a monarchy where the head of state is the personification of the state both terms can apply.

Or do I misread that entirely?

ADHR said...

That could work, but I'm not sure I'd want to make the division quite like that. Instead, how 'bout treachery and treason differ depending on how the relationship works. So, if my relationship to my state is one that's very personal, then I could commit treachery but not treason; on the other hand, if my relationship to my state is very impersonal and idealized, then I could commit treason but not treachery. That would also address the issue of monarchy: whether I betray the Queen the person or the Queen the institution, which would depend on what sort of relationship I have to the Queen.