Inauguration speech

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

I thought it was one of the more visionary inaugural speeches. He echoed Francis Fukuyama's theory of history as a progression towards freedom, and put into words what the world has known for decades, that the United States is dedicated to helping those who seek freedom.

How is parroting other's major talking points visionary?

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Did you watch the many, many people in the crowd who weren't applauding and were looking bored or disapproving whenever the cameras were on them?

Wow! Aren't inaugural audiences invite-only? Wouldn't one expect them to act a tad more enthused?

(Cynicism on) Or were perhaps editorial comments being made by broadcasters, in deciding which camera's images to transmit? (Cynicism off)

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

How is parroting other's major talking points visionary?

There's a difference between being original and being visionary.

Being visionary is seeing possibilities that others say can't be done or shouldn't be done. Ending world hunger, for example, is hardly an original idea, but any plan for doing so would certainly be visionary. JFK's moon shot and MLK's dream were no less visionary for having been espoused by countless others before them.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

There's a difference between being original and being visionary.

Ummm.....ok. Then:

Originally Posted by Epee_pox

Being visionary is seeing possibilities that others say can't be done or shouldn't be done.

So then by your definition, visionaries should be original at least in thinking. So the how is repeating what others have said visionary?

Originally Posted by epee_pox

Ending world hunger, for example, is hardly an original idea, but any plan for doing so would certainly be visionary. JFK's moon shot and MLK's dream were no less visionary for having been espoused by countless others before them.

Left in for context.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

So then by your definition, visionaries should be original at least in thinking. So the how is repeating what others have said visionary?

.

I must not have explained clearly.

Visionaries do not have to be original in thinking. The word "visionary" refers to someone with a grand optimistic view of the future, and who usually offers a plan for attaining the grandly optimistic goal.

My examples were there to demonstrate this. JFK was a visionary for setting in motion the moon landing. Hundreds if not thousands had already had the same idea, but that did not make his stating the goal any less visionary.

Similarly, MLK's dream that one day people would be judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, was no less visionary when he said it, even though the same goal had been espoused by countless people before him.

There is no originality requirement to be a visionary.

I hope I'm being less obfuscatory this time!

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by prototoast

freedom != equality

No, but they are related. If black people don't have the freedom to drink out of "white" water fountains, for example, the races are not equal.

Some people view the issue of gay marriage as being exactly like the example above, a matter of equal rights. Some think it is a moral issue, some think it is a religious issue. It's a matter of opinion, but to those who view it as a matter of equality, President Bush's speech was ironic.

[Have At You]

equality refers to everyone being afforded the same rights, and to a certain extent privileges.

freedom refers to either the freedom FROM things, or the freedom TO DO things.

you can certainly have equality without freedom. former soviet peoples knew that.

you can certainly have freedom without equality. pre-civil-rights americans knew that.

they're not really related, except that they're both things that humans aspire to.

[Soldier]

The illustration I liked best is of a pyramid - with complete freedom, that is how society looks. There are a few at the top, there is a mass at the bottom, and in between, a transition from the haves to the have-nots.

Complete equality would be a straight bar - everybody's at the same level.