Misquotes and quotes out of context

[The Avon Lady]

I have noticed 2 such occurences today here on the General forum alone. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has encountered them in various forums and articles over the Internet.

I thought this thread would be a good anchor to accumulate such examples. So, I'll start with the 2 I found today here.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

And Bush calls Iraq a comma in history! Is this guy a little short in the reality department? Not to mention that comment insults those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Bush was being interviewed by CNN's Wold Blitzer. Here's the exact quote from CNNs' transcript:

BLITZER: Let's move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war, if not already a civil war…. We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.

BUSH: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people…. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there's a strong will for democracy.

My point here is not to argue for or against Bush's opinion on creating a new Middle East. For the record, I strongly disagree with him. My point is to note that his subject of the word "comma" was not Iraq, as Brad claimed. Rather the subject is the difficulties Iraq is going through at this time in history, and from a future standpoint.

Next, a quote I spotted in forum member Immacolata's sig:

"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." - W. Churchill

Excellent quote. Accurate, too. Sounds like a great way to condemn Guantanamo, perhaps. Otherwise, of what interest is it?

Now go find the source and the subject. It was from a telegram Churchill sent on November 21, 1943, from Cairo, to British Home Secretary Herbert Morrison. The subject of this particular quote was the incarceration of British citizens in the UK, without filing charges. This had nothing to do with anything near the likes of today's Jihadi terrorists, who qualify as illegal combatants. EDIT: Come to think of it, Rudolph Hess was imprisoned for years by the British and only received a trial after the war. Also, I doubt Churchill had Roosevelt's incarceration of Japanese Americans in mind, either.

Unfortunately, in many such cases of misuse and abuse of quotes, the response is akin to "fake but accurate."

Seen some misquotes here or anywhere else? Post 'em!

[Immacolata]

There is nothing wrong with that quote. I believe it carries an universally valid evaluation of the civil society to make sure that no one is incarcerated without charge. Churchill put that in very precise words. His quote was in context of his citizens. How is that a misquote? I put his words verbatim I believe, I can be mistaken. If I am, then I will gladly correct it.

I think we are talking about a difference of opinion, not a misquote. If you do not like me quoting him, say so. Now it is entirely possible that the British Empire has violated their own ideals countless times in the eras, but I do not find that it dilutes the quote. You either imprisone people under the civil law or the martial law. Imprisoning them just because you feel like it outside the law is the first step on the road to totaltarianism.

What is next, I cannot quote kafka because he couldn't possible have thought about the future?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

There is nothing wrong with that quote. I believe it carries an universally valid evaluation of the civil society to make sure that no one is incarcerated without charge. Churchill put that in very precise words. His quote was in context of his citizens. How is that a misquote?

It isn't. I specifically stated it is accurate. However, on its own, it is out of context, as can easily be seen by googling for the quote and finding that it's a favorite of every BDS sufferer on the Internet.

I think we are talking about a difference of opinion, not a misquote.

The question is whether your opinion is above what Churchill himself intended in these words.

Now it is entirely possible that the British Empire has violated their own ideals countless times in the eras, but I do not find that it dilutes the quote. You either imprisone people under the civil law or the martial law. Imprisoning them just because you feel like it outside the law is the first step on the road to totaltarianism.

OK but what makes this quote, in its original context, interesting to you? This is a separate question, beyond the matter of the quote being construed out of context. There are so many great Churchillian quotes. Why chose this one?

What is next, I cannot quote kafka because he couldn't possible have thought about the future?

"You've got to put your past in your behind."
- Pumba, The Lion King

Now there's a quote begging for a sig. :p

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by Pumba, The Lion King

"You've got to put your past in your behind."
- Pumba, The Lion King

Its on the wiki and if its on the wiki it MUST be true

As for the subject, I have no idea what BDS is. Ill have to pass on that one.

If a state takes prisoners, the state must charge them for crimes or release them. WW2 was full of states ignoring that of course. Nice to see that at least one person was concerned about his citizens rights when fighting a state that wasn't. But citizen or not, I believe 60 years of prison or death sentence is justifiable against a terrorist. As long as there is a trial.

Now, why is that out of context? Because you try to tackle on technicalities? Churchill spoke of british citizens but these are not. AHA! Therefore the meaning of the words are irrevocably useless to make any statement of how a states should treat prisoners?

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

As for the subject, I have no idea what BDS is. Ill have to pass on that one.

BDS.

If a state takes prisoners, the state must charge them for crimes or release them. WW2 was full of states ignoring that of course.

Including the UK, under Churchill's authority.

What does that imply about this particular quote of Churchill's?:hmm:

Nice to see that at least one person was concerned about his citizens rights when fighting a state that wasn't. But citizen or not, I believe 60 years of prison or death sentence is justifiable against a terrorist. As long as there is a trial.

No argument there but that is NOT what Churchill was referring to.

Now, why is that out of context? Because you try to tackle on technicalities? Churchill spoke of british citizens but these are not. AHA! Therefore the meaning of the words are irrevocably useless to make any statement of how a states should treat prisoners?

No. You can use anything any which way you want. The quote may very well fit the opinion you're trying to express. However, the subject of this thread is misquotes and out of context quotes. What you yourself have just stated shows that your sig is certainly a case of the latter. That's all I'm pointing out.

[Immacolata]

[QUOTE=The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

As for the subject, I have no idea what BDS is. Ill have to pass on that one.

BDS.
Meh, I wish I had known. I do not wish to be hung together with conspiracy therrorists.

Including the UK, under Churchill's authority.

Yes, I did not say otherwise.

What does that imply about this particular quote of Churchill's?:hmm:

It implies that the man actually gave it a thought. I believe I quoted Nietsche earlier and his much famed abyss quote (Now you're gonna tell me Im misquoting him too next I gather... ) It is war, you play dirty tricks. Can't be helped. Same with USA. It is war you play dirty tricks can't be helped. You just risk turning into the same monster your try to fight. Perhaps Churchill thought about it. But do you hear Bush churning out wise reflections and concerin for protection the rights of his citizens? No, far too many world leaders, not just bush, are sweating on the brow and their fingers really itch to make some tightening up. The first swig of the bottle...

No. You can use anything any which way you want. The quote may very well fit the opinion you're trying to express. However, the subject of this thread is misquotes and out of context quotes. What you yourself have just stated shows that your sig is certainly a case of the latter. That's all I'm pointing out.

Or as I have tried to point out, yes I can. Perhaps I should make a footnote to my quote refering to this august debate :rotfl:

Except that if every lefty nutter uses that its kind of not cool anymore. Even though I belive it to be profound and current.

[The Avon Lady]

Another famous misquote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Currently, a forum member is showing the following in his sig:

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve, nor will he ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

This is both a misquote and takes Frankin's original words and intentions out of context. From Ben Franklin @ WikiQuote:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a Little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

We are in a day and age where it's not a question of 'security' we're talking about but rather a question of 'survival' - something Old Ben never had to face and likely couldn't possibly understand.

[Tchocky]

Personally, I try to avoid using quotes in an argument. Nevermind context, they turn debates into quote-slinging. Churchill seems to make an appearance here every 45 minutes.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Personally, I try to avoid using quotes in an argument. Nevermind context, they turn debates into quote-slinging. Churchill seems to make an appearance here every 45 minutes.

" It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotation...... The quotations when engraved upon the memory give you good thoughts."
- Sir Winston Churchill



UPDATE: Most appropriately, Churchill also said "Verify your quotations."

[Tchocky]

Godddd.......................dammit!

[Chock]

Yup Churchill himself may be quoted often, but he wasn't averse to paraphrasing and nicking bits from quotes himself. Probably his most famous quote, which inspired the nickname for the Battle of Britain pilots, i.e. the one about 'so much being owed by so many, to so few', was certainly a tweek of Shakespeare's St Crispin's day speech from Henry V: 'We happy few, we band of brothers'.

Chock

Yaaaaay, you go girl!

First off, any argument that is predicated on an appeal to authority is a weak argument at best.

The rest of y'all seem to be arguing the Rights of Man as if those are somehow applicable to terrorists. They aren't and don't. Terrorists are inhumane scum of this earth less deserving of pity than rabid scurvy dogs delerious in the heat of the Indian noon-day sun, shrieking in terror while chasing their tails, not knowing from whence the bite of the pit viper comes.

No, the terrorist has shirked themselves of the mantle of humanity once they plotted to maim and kill as many innocent women, children and babies that their diabolical deeds can accomplish. And doubly so when they set upon implementing their own little ones to carry out their heneious objectives. They are absolutely deserved whatever contempt can be mustered out of bile soaked stomach where rage against that scourge festers and yearns for justice.

These people scoff at and mock the laws of our society, seing it weak and helpless because of them. And yet when it suits they utilize and pervert them for their own interests.

It takes a pretty cold blooded-individual, and callous soul to listen stalwartly to the shrieks of the hostage who had his head hacked off with a steak knife before a video camera, the episode subseuntly broadcast on the internet (his remains being discarded along side the banks of some nameless river somewhere like so much flotsom, jetsam and detritus ubequitus in thirdworld hell-holes), and then claim this pestilence deserves any rights whatsoever. Not only should the terrorists be rounded up and incarcerated, and then summarily executed with or without trial (it makes no difference to me), but their families should be subsequently also be taken. This includes the women and children, especially the woman and children of terrorist families. The children particularly because they grow up to be terrorists, and the women foremost because they breed terrorists.

No pity, no sorrow for their plight, not even contempt; I have no more feelings for them than I do when I sqaush a cockroach, or use a nuclear knife to eradicate some metastic tumor from my flesh. The liberal element of Western Civilization hasn't realized that the terrorists have declared war on us. They don't understand that this war hasn't been delclared against any particular or arbitrary country, but against our society, culture and way of life. And they don't understand that the war being waged by them already is that of total war. And the liberal West responds with squeemishness. The West doesn't understand that that the terrorist adheres to no rule, to no law, and cares not about whom they intend to wound, maim and kill. They hide behind the skirts of their women, they use their children as shields, and race up to locations in ambulances under the protection of the Red Cross, and then explode.

The schizophrenia of the terrorist mind is readily apparent. On the one hand they curse the tyranny of the oppressor, calling them evil, and then launch attacks from populated civilian areas such as churches, schools, residential high rise buildings, or blowing themselves up in crowded markets, hotel lobbies, and buses.

Who said that there will be peace in the Mid-East when they love their own children more than they hate us?

Let me demonstrate how these people think. Back during the days of the Cuban Missle Crises, Cuba actually had Soviet missles under its command. Che Guerra was Castro's right hand man and was in direct control of some of these missles. It came out many years later that he was actively maneauvering for a first strike nuclear attack against the U.S. Navy at the time. In an interview shortly before he died, he was asked about this. Such an attack would not have gone unanswered, nor could the loss of the Amercican fleet be. In reciprocation the U.S.S.R would've been compelled to either launch and outright invasion of Europe or a nuclear counter strike against the U.S.A. There would've been no alternative to Krushchev for such resonse, for if he'd have failed to act, he'd have been either deposed or killed (or both) very shortly thereafter, and the consequences would've ended up the same.

Guerra was asked what possible gain he forsaw by having his homeland obliterated in nuclear fire (for obliterated it would've been). Guerra responded calmly by saying the obliteration of Cuba would be an acceptable price to pay for the absolute, and certain, destruction of the U.S.A.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Another famous misquote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Currently, a forum member is showing the following in his sig:

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve, nor will he ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

This is both a misquote and takes Frankin's original words and intentions out of context. From Ben Franklin @ WikiQuote:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a Little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

We are in a day and age where it's not a question of 'security' we're talking about but rather a question of 'survival' - something Old Ben never had to face and likely couldn't possibly understand.

As I was saying in my PM to AL, it is interesting that so many sayings are passed down and changed. It reminds me of the "Telephone Game" from Kindergarten.

I'm surprised that Santayana's quote about remembering history was not brought up, as it is not only misquoted, but often misattributed to Elie Weisel.

Another possibility is that some of these folks said the same stuff over and over. One of my personal heroes, Hyman Rickover, has a famous quote about sinning against God, which you see several different versions of. But the fact is he hated Bureaucrats so likely said the same thing over and over (and over and over and over).