|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| But if there is a connection between the concept of being pagan and the concept of propaganda ( which I find highly doubtful )it is certainly not shown linguistically by the existance of one word within the other. That sort of thing happens all the time and can easily be coincidence, which it is in this case. IGTG has been definitively proved wrong on this one and just casually side steps into a new line of attack. Let's all just take a moment to notice that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
But if there is a connection between the concept of being pagan and the concept of propaganda ( which I find highly doubtful )
it is certainly not shown linguistically ... by the existance of one word ... within the other.
That sort of thing happens all the time and can easily be ... coincidence, which it is in this case.
IGTG has been definitively proved wrong ... on this one ... and just casually side steps into a new line of attack.
Let's all just take a moment to notice that. |
Define "PAGAN". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depth
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Propaganda:
there seems to be no suggestion that Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (@1422) was a movement based on misinformation..... it only sought to simply "spread the faith"
propaganda apparently only began to take on a negative connotation during WW1 when politics began exploiting the strategy.
it is an interesting observation by igotthisguitar, at least to me it suggests an acknowledgment by the Pope (at the time of 1422) that they (christians) were in fact spreading paganism.
strange how they can coin this term while at the same time demonizing, torturing and killing pagans. it is highly contradictory and representative of the absolute authority the church had......that on the one hand they acknowledge their roots and on the other destroy the sinful pagans for coming up with the original concepts which christians adopted.
interestingly, Congregatio de Propaganda Fide was later renamed Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples in 1982. maybe the sick joke was becoming too obvious?
igotthisguitar - you seem to be writing in questions and riddles, i'm not sure what your motive is. are you wanting to stimulate a discussion? if you have something useful to share, then stop beating around the bush.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Funkdafied wrote: |
But if there is a connection between the concept of being pagan and the concept of propaganda ( which I find highly doubtful )
it is certainly not shown linguistically ... by the existance of one word ... within the other.
That sort of thing happens all the time and can easily be ... coincidence, which it is in this case.
IGTG has been definitively proved wrong ... on this one ... and just casually side steps into a new line of attack.
Let's all just take a moment to notice that. |
Define "PAGAN". |
I don't have to define the word pagan to make my point, which stands.
The fact that a combination of words spelling pagan exists inside the word propaganda does not suggest a connection between the two concepts. The root of each word is linguistically different, they are not connected. That is the point, and the precise definition of the word pagan has no bearing on this.
You are wrong, and considering your overbearing pomposity on these boards over the last 6 years or so, I would say it's about you got some dignity, some humility, and some integrity, and actually apologise and admit your error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depth
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
I don't have to define the word pagan to make my point, which stands.
The fact that a combination of words spelling pagan exists inside the word propaganda does not suggest a connection between the two concepts. The root of each word is linguistically different, they are not connected. That is the point, and the precise definition of the word pagan has no bearing on this.
You are wrong, and considering your overbearing pomposity on these boards over the last 6 years or so, I would say it's about you got some dignity, some humility, and some integrity, and actually apologise and admit your error. |
the roots are different.
the connection is, that it is a "play on words" by the pope who coined the term propaganda.
play on words shouldn't be shocking to anyone, we see it happening every day in the media. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
When I look up the etymology of "propaganda" I don't find anything about a deliberate play on words by the Pope. "Propaganda" is a latin adjective derived from the verb "propago" meaning "that which is to be spread". That is all. No connection to the concept of "pagan".
And the Pope did not "coin" the term "propaganda", it was already a well established part of the language. That's that theory sunk I believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
PAGAN
Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic"
pro-PAGAN-da
For the unsophisticated & easily hood-winked "pagan" suckers  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
PAGAN
Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic"
pro-PAGAN-da
For the unsophisticated & easily hood-winked "pagan" suckers |
Oh my god, this is brilliant! You just defeated yourself in argument!
You just proved that that the root of propaganda and pagan are different.
Well done sir! We should keep you around here, you'll be great for counteracting that annoying IGTG! With your powerfully thought out and deep researched posts you will be able to rip his poorly reasoned and deeply demented nonsense apart in no time! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| depth wrote: |
Propaganda:
there seems to be no suggestion that Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (@1422) was a movement based on misinformation..... it only sought to simply "spread the faith"
propaganda apparently only began to take on a negative connotation during WW1 when politics began exploiting the strategy. |
Well, sure. Whether propaganda is good, bad, misleading, or accurate depends on the eye of the beholder. The word has a negative shading in 2008 America, mostly due to its connection with Nazism and Stalinism, but it didn't in Gregory XV's time.
| Quote: |
it is an interesting observation by igotthisguitar, at least to me it suggests an acknowledgment by the Pope (at the time of 1422) that they (christians) were in fact spreading paganism.
strange how they can coin this term while at the same time demonizing, torturing and killing pagans. it is highly contradictory and representative of the absolute authority the church had......that on the one hand they acknowledge their roots and on the other destroy the sinful pagans for coming up with the original concepts which christians adopted.
interestingly, Congregatio de Propaganda Fide was later renamed Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples in 1982. maybe the sick joke was becoming too obvious?
igotthisguitar - you seem to be writing in questions and riddles, i'm not sure what your motive is. are you wanting to stimulate a discussion? if you have something useful to share, then stop beating around the bush. |
No, IGTG is just wrong on this one. The similarity of the two words is entirely coincidental. Gregory did not intend to signify anything about paganism by what he named his initiative. It'd be like claiming "No Child Left Behind" is a secret boondoggle for left-handed children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
depth
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
PAGAN
Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic"
pro-PAGAN-da
For the unsophisticated & easily hood-winked "pagan" suckers |
all this implies, is that christians, by default of natural evolution, are competitively superior to pagans.
| depth wrote: |
The critical difference is the realization by christians of limited natural resources brought about by the population growth.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
PAGAN
Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic"
pro-PAGAN-da
For the unsophisticated & easily hood-winked "pagan" suckers |
Oh my god, this is brilliant! You just defeated yourself in argument!
You just "proved that" that the root of propaganda and pagan are ... different.
Well done sir!
We should keep you around here, you'll be great for counteracting that annoying IGTG!
With your powerfully thought out and deep researched posts you will be able to rip his poorly reasoned and deeply demented nonsense apart in no time! |
Huh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| Yes, they have. Get lost. |
So what then is a pagan? |
Is this a koan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
PAGAN
Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller, rustic"
pro-PAGAN-da
For the unsophisticated & easily hood-winked "pagan" suckers |
Oh my god, this is brilliant! You just defeated yourself in argument!
You just "proved that" that the root of propaganda and pagan are ... different.
Well done sir!
We should keep you around here, you'll be great for counteracting that annoying IGTG!
With your powerfully thought out and deep researched posts you will be able to rip his poorly reasoned and deeply demented nonsense apart in no time! |
Huh? |
You REALLY want this explained again? OK, one more time for the slow amoung us.
The words pagan and propaganda are not linguistically related. It is pure coincidence that one exists inside the other and signifies nothing.
The word propaganda existed before the Pope made his prolamation, he was not coining a word, and he did not intend any "wordplay" based on the word pagan.
By giving us the root word of pagan, which is paganus, and showing us it's definition, you clearly showed that the word is not linguistically related to the word propaganda. But you've been trying to show us that the two words are somehow related. So you defeated your own argument by showing us the words are not related.
Everyone has seen this, and some have commented on it.
Im wondering if you'll have the dignity to admit your mistake and apologise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| The words pagan and pro-pagan-da are not linguistically related. |
Sorry man.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan
You're either purposely lying here, or simply deluded with some major ignorance.
btw - what does PRO mean? Opposite of CON isn't it?
| Quote: |
| It is pure coincidence that one exists inside the other and signifies nothing. |
Purely coincidence?
Oh right. Just like it's "purely coincidence" you'd like readers to believe that 
| Quote: |
| The word pro-pagan-da existed before the Pope made his prolamation, he was not coining a word ... |
i never disputed this. Why RU?
| Quote: |
| ... and he did not intend any "wordplay" based on the word pagan. |
Never intended word play? Really? How do know? Did he tell you this?
No, language of course never has anything to do with word-play does it?
Such SEM-antics ... 
| Quote: |
By giving us the root word of pagan, which is paganus, and showing us it's definition, you clearly showed that the word is not linguistically related to the word propaganda.
But you've been trying to show us that the two words are somehow related.
So ... you defeated your own argument by showing us the words are not related. |
Quite the opposite my frantic little forum friend.
BEGGING THE QUESTION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
The Roman Empire clearly knew the value of pro-PAGAN-da in govening ( i.e. controlling the hoi poloi ).
In fact, for anyone who's actually at down & thought about these things, the political & religious establishment of any society in history has largely sought to affect, shape, or otherwise influence hearts & minds.
Who did they mainly target?
PAGANS ( i.e. non-city dwelling, non-christians, non-military ).
Even today pro-PAGAN-da has everything to do with targeting pagans.
Indeed, the more things change  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
but jesus was a devout jew. he followed judaic laws. so...would jesus have considered "christians" to be the judaic equivalents to pagans?
aren't christians pagans, one and all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
