Your attempt to differentiate between preaching and doing is one of the more considered arguments in this whole mess. Not necessarily correct, but at least worth discussing.
I'm sure you've heard of the crime "inciting to riot". The logic behind it is pure commonsense: Somebody who stirs up others to riot is as responsible for the resulting damage as any direct participant. The law wisely rejects the defense that "it's not my problem if they actually took me seriously. I was just kidding, honest [wink wink]". Responsibility is responsibility.
That's why I took Gary's accusation of "scumbags in the HabitableZone preaching treason" just as seriously as if he'd said that people here are committing treason: It's an artificial distinction. Somebody preaching treason is as morally culpable as somebody who actually commits treason.
The Right loves to claim the moral high ground. So how come I'm the one holding to a moral absolute, and you guys are splitting hairs and making contrived technical arguments to deny responsibility?
One strange impression I get, is that some people seem to think that treason is not possible unless it capable of being prosecuted under US Laws- though I suppose they would be willing extend it to other countries laws. Which also suggests that it is the laws themselves, that are actually "creating" the treason, and if you happen change laws in a certain way then it's would be possible to bring an end to all treason.
Strange stuff.
That would be strange, if that were what anybody had argued. But the silly thing about relying on a dictionary over the US Constitution is that there are many dictionaries, but only one Constitution. Treason is a crime and no dictionary has the power to make it not a crime. Maybe the dictionaries you and Mark consulted didn't mention that treason is a crime (or maybe you shopped around until you found a congenial definition), but others do:
treason
A noun
...
2 treason, high_treason, lese_majesty
a crime that undermines the offender's government
wordreference.com
Conversely, consider this definition:
pe·do·phil·ia
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
Merrian-Webster Online
Does this dictionary's failure to mention that pedophilia is a crime make it any less a crime? Does it mean that accusing somebody of pedophilia is not the same as accusing them of a crime?
The essential point here is that you must go with the most authoritative definition to avoid error. Given that there are so many dictionaries with so many definitions of treason, you're bound to go wrong if you refuse to rely on the singular authority of our Constitution. Our Constitution defines treason as a crime, so accusing somebody of treason is to accuse them of a crime. Just as surely as accusing someone of pedophilia is to accuse them of a crime too.
Or consider this: A dictionry will tell you only that a meter is "about 39.37 inches". That gives you a sense of the size of a meter if you happen to know what an inch is, but it's woefully inadequate if you're trying to construct a bridge or plot a trajectory from the Earth to Mars. If you relied on a dictionary you'd miss Mars by a huge margin...as you and Gary and Mark miss when you try to rely on a dictionary over the US Constitution. A dictionary records the opinion of a lexicographer; the US Constitution is the law.
Thanks, gb, for giving me something more interesting to discuss than just going around in circles with "Idiot Detector". Your post was more interesting than anything Mark's posted on this thread.