Capitalism - the Ultimate Religion

[Existentialist]

Point to the place where he attributed the quote to Churchill. I'll be waiting.

Adrian - this is the sixth time you've said you have a different opinion from me about this rather pedantic matter - and you accuse me of being argumentative? Who's really trolling this thread? It's meant to be about whether or not capitalism is a religion. I've already invited you twice to return to the subject. Out of courtesy I'm happy to indulge you by expressing my opinion on the highly addictive misquote/paraphrase debate, but please don't accuse me a third time of trolling just because I have expressed a different opinion from you on invitation from yourself. After this, may I suggest you start your own thread on the distinction between a misquote and a paraphrase. I would be happy to indulge you further there in order to help clear the matter up. I don't want to stop you returning to the subject here if you really feel you must, I would however suggest that an alternative thread might be more appropriate, so why don't you start one?

Zen Badger quoted and attributed some parts of Churchill's sentence correctly. He inserted new words that were not Churchill's. The result was a partly correct quote and partly a new statement. But by no stretch of the imagination can the whole resulting sentence be described as a quote, I think we are agreed on that, so there is no way that I or anybody can point to a place where Zen Badger attributed a quote to Churchill. But the lack of attribution need not prevent Zen Badger's new sentence being defined as a misquote, because if a quote doesn't always need to be attributed, as the definition of a quote that I helpfully provided earlier indicates, then it is reasonable to infer that the same applies to a misquote - it does not need to be attributed. So in my opinion, Zen Badger misquoted Churchill. He was open and honest about it, it was a deliberate misquote to make a point about capitalism, and I can well understand him seeking to claim some impression of legitimacy for his new idea by associating Churchill with it, even if the association is somewhat tenuous.

The problem with calling it a paraphrase is that the word paraphrase could mean either a restatement of the original quote with new words resulting in the same meaning, or new words resulting in a different meaning. It is a personal preference on my part to avoid the use of the word 'paraphrase' when the original meaning is being changed, in case people who haven't read a dictionary right through lately mistakenly assume that it only means the more common usage, that the original meaning is being conveyed. I would rather clear up any potential misunderstanding at the outset, hence my personal preference for using the word misquote, which conveys the idea of inaccurate translation unambiguously. Add to this my personal view that Winston Churchill was such a master of the English language that his original words really need no amendment, and I think my use of the word misquote is entirely appropriate.

Thus at a public meeting, if a politician were to get up and say "If I may just misquote Churchill, 'Capitalism is the worst system apart from all the others'", and a clever person in the audience interjected, "I think you'll find that was a paraphrase, not a misquote," I rather suspect that the overwhelming audience reaction would not unreasonably be one of taking offence at the interruption. Whereas if a politician were to get up and say, "If I may just quote Churchill, 'And should the Royal Air Force drop two thousand, or three thousand, or four thousand kilograms of bombs, then we will now drop 150,000; 180,000; 230,000; 300,000; 400,000; yes, one million kilograms in a single night!' and somebody from the floor were to interject saying, "Actually that's a misquote, Hitler said it, not Churchill" I think they would be met rather more warmly.

As ever I would say these things are probably a matter of personal preference - people do use the same words differently, after all. Personal style, tone, emphasis and people's emotional reactions to particular words are important in their selection of words as well as their understanding of the dictionary definition of them. I wouldn't deny anyone the right to an opinion about the words they should use to convey their meaning. I may challenge them on it, I may suggest that their credibility or worse their sincerity is in doubt if they choose words I wouldn't (I do not think that is the case here), but ultimately I wouldn't take away somebody's right to choose words themselves - if we did that, we might as well stick a gag on their mouths and ban them from speaking or even writing, and that would be an appalling affront to human dignity, wouldn't it?

Anyway, I look forward to continuing this conversation in a new thread. Now can we please go back to Walter Benjamin and his writings in 'Capitalism as Religion' - what are your thoughts?