An Article in the Paper

[wildcat]

I read an article in the paper the other day.
The story was about a politician in a European country.

A man retired with honours.
An intellectual.
An intelligent chap.

This is what the paper said.

I have an addition to make.

A traitor.
An ESTJ.

The ESTJs make the best traitors.
Why?
Because they toe the line.

 

[nightning]

*blinks* Is being a traitor necessarily a bad thing? Would you call them fearful for not daring to step over the line or clever in adapting for self preservation?

Te dominant. Objective is all that matters... I suppose they can be traitors. Are they the best though? Hmmmm can we not say the same of ENTJs? But traitors of other things? What about other types?

No no... you're only a traitor if you go against what you believe in... Other people will believe in other things. Looking back then, all will be traitors.

 

[FallsPioneer]

Differently defined morals and priorities, maybe. I know an ESTJ who can be very much like that though.

Wait, what did the paper say?

 

[ygolo]

Wait, what did the paper say?

It wasn't about this:

Ambassador Rusi demands Finland to look into espionage by KGB, Stasi

was it wildcat?

 

[Wandering]

Define traitor. I've found that I often disagree with people as to what defines a traitor.

 

[wildcat]

*blinks* Is being a traitor necessarily a bad thing? Would you call them fearful for not daring to step over the line or clever in adapting for self preservation?

Te dominant. Objective is all that matters... I suppose they can be traitors. Are they the best though? Hmmmm can we not say the same of ENTJs? But traitors of other things? What about other types?

No no... you're only a traitor if you go against what you believe in... Other people will believe in other things. Looking back then, all will be traitors.

Is a traitor necessarily a bad thing? It depends on who is the judge.
The famous English traitors of the 30s were villains in England and heroes in the Soviet Union. Originally they were antifascists and in the end they became communist supporters. Stalin wanted them to support the fascists.
They were fearful and therefore clever.
One of them was told to kill Franco. Can you kill a statesman and not be caught? Usually not.
He did not kill Franco. He was afraid. In the end he did not want to give his life for Stalin.
Stalin let him life. The traitor was still useful.

The ENTJs are too independent to be useful traitors. But they can become double or triple traitors.

In the mind of a fanatic all people are traitors.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Catfight!

Reeeer!

 

[wildcat]

Differently defined morals and priorities, maybe. I know an ESTJ who can be very much like that though.

Wait, what did the paper say?

Yes. Differently defined morals and prorities. Exactly.
Can you tell more of this ESTJ?

The paper said interesting things. Alas I cannot give the details. Otherwise it will be known who I mean. I should be shot down immediately. Figuratively speaking. And that would not be the end of it.

 

[wildcat]

It wasn't about this:

Ambassador Rusi demands Finland to look into espionage by KGB, Stasi

was it wildcat?

I do not mean mr Rusi. He was not a traitor as far as I know. It appears he was falsely accused.

 

[wildcat]

Define traitor. I've found that I often disagree with people as to what defines a traitor.

If you undertake illegal operations in France at the behest of the Slovenian government you are a traitor in the mind of the French.

 

[Wandering]

If you undertake illegal operations in France on the behest of the Slovenian government you are a traitor in the mind of the French.

This I agree with.

Reminds me of the shock I had when I learned that in countries like Germany or Slovenia, just wanting to take on a second nationality is considered an act of treason. If I remember well Germany won't even allow it anyway, and Slovenia only relented a few months or years ago but still looks down on it very badly. France, on the other hand, could barely care less.

But anyway, back to the topic.

My questions now are: can't there be times and occasions when being a traitor is the "right" thing to do? Which should take precedence: the nationality we are accidentally born with, or our personal morality?

 

[wildcat]

This I agree with.

Reminds me of the shock I had when I learned that in countries like Germany or Slovenia, just wanting to take on a second nationality is considered an act of treason. If I remember well Germany won't even allow it anyway, and Slovenia only relented a few months or years ago but still looks down on it very badly. France, on the other hand, could barely care less.

But anyway, back to the topic.

My questions now are: can't there be times and occasions when being a traitor is the "right" thing to do? Which should take precedence: the nationality we are accidentally born with, or our personal morality?

Please give me an example.

A person who betrayed her country for a nobler cause.

 

[Wandering]

Please give me an example.

A person who betrayed her country for a nobler cause.

The Founding Fathers of America. They were born (mostly) British and went on to fight the British Empire in the name of a higher cause, the USA.

The French revolutionaries. How much more high treason do you get than beheading your own king :rolli:?

Any kind of revolutionary, really, since a revolution, by definition, implies to fight against one's government in the name of some higher cause.

 

[wildcat]

The Founding Fathers of America. They were born (mostly) British and went on to fight the British Empire in the name of a higher cause, the USA.

The French revolutionaries. How much more high treason do you get than beheading your own king :rolli:?

Any kind of revolutionary, really, since a revolution, by definition, implies to fight against one's government in the name of some higher cause.

It would have been judicious for America to stay under the British Crown.
It would have been advantageous for France to maintain the monarchy.

The traitor does not have a cause beyond himself.

 

[Wandering]

It would have been judicious for America to stay under the British Crown.
It would have been advantageous for France to maintain the monarchy.

You can't know that (unless of course you have priviledged access to parallel dimensions ) You can only *assume* those things. And maybe you're right, but maybe you're wrong. So you can't use those assumptions to judge the actions of the revolutionaries a posteriori.

The traitor does not have a cause beyond himself.

That's not logical. Why would anyone put themselves into such danger as is inherent in treason, if they had only themselves in mind? Wouldn't logic dictate that they would instead choose the path of least danger?

 

[nightning]

Is a traitor necessarily a bad thing? It depends on who is the judge.

One of them was told to kill Franco. Can you kill a statesman and not be caught? Usually not.
He did not kill Franco. He was afraid. In the end he did not want to give his life for Stalin.
Stalin let him life. The traitor was still useful.

So a traitor is selfish and only cares for himself. Cleverness used in his survival... but trying to be too clever and the traitor gets caught. What am I saying? Not too sure... only that the traitor himself knows how guilty he is.

The ENTJs are too independent to be useful traitors. But they can become double or triple traitors.

I see what you mean. Two different type of traitors... both started out thinking for their personal gains... One becomes dependent on the system, while the other just use the system. Interesting.

That's not logical. Why would anyone put themselves into such danger as is inherent in treason, if they had only themselves in mind? Wouldn't logic dictate that they would instead choose the path of least danger?

They switch sides don't they because they see themselves as clever? In the beginning, it's about personal gain... cheating the system... but in the end... some realize they're not clever enough afterall.

 

[lastrailway]

Ok, I give up, after numerous queries in Google.
Who was that guy?

 

[Wandering]

They switch sides don't they because they see themselves as clever? In the beginning, it's about personal gain... cheating the system... but in the end... some realize they're not clever enough afterall.

Hmm... Makes sense.

 

[wildcat]

Ok, I give up, after numerous queries in Google.
Who was that guy?

I am sorry that I cannot tell the name or the country in an open forum.

Why was the Google answer in Finnish?

 

[lastrailway]

I am sorry that I cannot tell the name or the country in an open forum.

Oh, ok. *sigh*

Why was the Google answer in Finnish?

Unfortunately, not because I understand Finnish (it was in English in my search).
It must be your browser settings, you might have selected Finnish as preferred language. Or you have set Google preferences so.