Ben Carson Defends (Girlfriend Beating) Ray Rice

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm not a Carson fan, but he's not defending Ray Rice.  He's saying Rice and his wife both need help.  I wouldn't disagree with that.  I would've phrased it a bit differently, but what he said wasn't wrong or inappropriate, and I don't think he's victim blaming.  A large majority of women in abusive relationships return to their abusers.  Acknowledging that isn't victim blaming.  It'd be foolish for those who wish to help victims not to acknowledge that.  But acknowledging it doesn't equate to victim blaming, unless you think that virtually every domestic abuse shelter and organization out there are engaging in victim blaming.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There is no doubt that if this were a year from now and the campaign were in full swing he would be spending the next week defending this and eventually doing some sort of public apology. The media would be all over him over this. The whole thing just shows that even though he thinks that God wants him to be President, he is simply not ready for prime time.

When has he ever said he thinks God wants him to be President?  At this point, he's still leaning away from even running.

Carson is defending him, no amount of playing semantics can change that. Zimmerman defenders used the same logic, "let's not jump to conclusions", "don't demonize him", "you weren't there, you don't know what happened", so I don't buy that Carson is not defending him. 

No; "let's not jump to conclusions" is a lot different than advocating for not demonizing him.  Nowhere has Carson ever said, "let's not jump to conclusions" or "we don't know what happened".  There's no indication that Carson thinks Rice was in any way justified or should not be held responsible for what he did.

I mean, really, what good does demonizing him do?  The guy needs help.  He should be charged with assault, as he was, and he accepted a pretrial intervention program.  The criminal system should be about rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated and permanently separating those who cannot from society.  Portraying someone to be a wicked, disgusting person accomplishes neither of those things.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well I was joking, because there is actually a FB thing
https://www.facebook.com/GodCallingDrCarsonToRunForPresidentIn2016

...but if you want Truthiness, then....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One can only conclude that either the Lord has touched Dr. Carson's collar, or he is getting ready for him to do so.


But in general I think you are missing the point of this thread. With this comment and others he has made like comparing Obamacare to slavery, comparing homosexuality to bestiality, etc. This guy is not capable of surviving the media scrutiny of a presidential campaign.

I agree with your last two sentences, but that's why I ultimately think he'll decide against running.  I don't see him jumping into the race.

That being said, his statement here isn't something I think he should be criticized over.  A lot of the other stuff he's said--absolutely, but not this.  And it's sad that you've got political hacks out there characterizing what he said as "defending" Rice, when there's no indication that he's defending him or what he did.  Advocating against demonizing him isn't defending him; it's urging for a solution to the problem instead of just throwing words out into the media.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I guess the two questions I'd like to see answered by those who think Carson is in the wrong here are:

1) Why should Rice be demonized?
2) What does demonizing Rice accomplish?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There is no doubt that if this were a year from now and the campaign were in full swing he would be spending the next week defending this and eventually doing some sort of public apology. The media would be all over him over this. The whole thing just shows that even though he thinks that God wants him to be President, he is simply not ready for prime time.

When has he ever said he thinks God wants him to be President?  At this point, he's still leaning away from even running.

Carson is defending him, no amount of playing semantics can change that. Zimmerman defenders used the same logic, "let's not jump to conclusions", "don't demonize him", "you weren't there, you don't know what happened", so I don't buy that Carson is not defending him. 

No; "let's not jump to conclusions" is a lot different than advocating for not demonizing him.  Nowhere has Carson ever said, "let's not jump to conclusions" or "we don't know what happened".  There's no indication that Carson thinks Rice was in any way justified or should not be held responsible for what he did.

I mean, really, what good does demonizing him do?  The guy needs help.  He should be charged with assault, as he was, and he accepted a pretrial intervention program.  The criminal system should be about rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated and permanently separating those who cannot from society.  Portraying someone to be a wicked, disgusting person accomplishes neither of those things.

It's all in the same line of logic, which is implying that having a negative opinion of people who do the wrong thing. Of course someone who is caught on tape knocking a person unconscious is going to be spoken about negatively, that behavior is unacceptable and needs to be called out. He portrayed himself as a disgusting person through his own behavior.

Being called out and being demonized are two different things, and no, it's not all in the same line of logic (although I'm not sure you finished your sentence... I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to say).  At no point did Carson say that Rice's behavior wasn't acceptable.  At no point did Carson say that Rice's behavior shouldn't be spoken about negatively.  You're talking about things that aren't what Carson said.

Conveniently you glossed over my two questions in my last post, so I'll ask them again:

1) Why should Rice be demonized?
2) What does demonizing Rice accomplish?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I guess the two questions I'd like to see answered by those who think Carson is in the wrong here are:

1) Why should Rice be demonized?

Because this:



is well outside of what is generally considered acceptable behavior. If one doesn't think he needs to be publicly shamed, they need to watch that video again. And again.

2) What does demonizing Rice accomplish?

This requires the assumption that outrage towards Ray Rice is intended to accomplish anything--and is anything but a perfectly normal reaction to seeing someone do something so egregious towards someone who is relatively defenseless--and could be anybody's mother, sister, daughter, friend, or cousin. I seriously doubt that there is an orchestrated effort to accomplish a goal or meet an objective by lashing out at Ray Rice.

Thus, this isn't the right question to be asking.

And what is your opinion of the death penalty and mandatory minimums?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There is no doubt that if this were a year from now and the campaign were in full swing he would be spending the next week defending this and eventually doing some sort of public apology. The media would be all over him over this. The whole thing just shows that even though he thinks that God wants him to be President, he is simply not ready for prime time.

When has he ever said he thinks God wants him to be President?  At this point, he's still leaning away from even running.

Carson is defending him, no amount of playing semantics can change that. Zimmerman defenders used the same logic, "let's not jump to conclusions", "don't demonize him", "you weren't there, you don't know what happened", so I don't buy that Carson is not defending him. 

No; "let's not jump to conclusions" is a lot different than advocating for not demonizing him.  Nowhere has Carson ever said, "let's not jump to conclusions" or "we don't know what happened".  There's no indication that Carson thinks Rice was in any way justified or should not be held responsible for what he did.

I mean, really, what good does demonizing him do?  The guy needs help.  He should be charged with assault, as he was, and he accepted a pretrial intervention program.  The criminal system should be about rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated and permanently separating those who cannot from society.  Portraying someone to be a wicked, disgusting person accomplishes neither of those things.

It's all in the same line of logic, which is implying that having a negative opinion of people who do the wrong thing. Of course someone who is caught on tape knocking a person unconscious is going to be spoken about negatively, that behavior is unacceptable and needs to be called out. He portrayed himself as a disgusting person through his own behavior.

Being called out and being demonized are two different things, and no, it's not all in the same line of logic (although I'm not sure you finished your sentence... I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to say).  At no point did Carson say that Rice's behavior wasn't acceptable.  At no point did Carson say that Rice's behavior shouldn't be spoken about negatively.  You're talking about things that aren't what Carson said.

Conveniently you glossed over my two questions in my last post, so I'll ask them again:

1) Why should Rice be demonized?
2) What does demonizing Rice accomplish?

Carson's notion that the wife needs help too implies that she is somehow to blame, which is a sneaky defense for Rice. Never once did I claim that Carson said the behavior was acceptable, I was stating that he was borderline defending Rice in a convoluted way.

I don't know about you, but that video speaks for itself. I don't think demonizing is even the right word for the response. You are entitled to your opinion, so I will not argue with you. End of debate.

Saying that he wife needs help isn't implying that she's to blame.  It's acknowledging the fact that a substantial majority of abused women return to their abusers.  Like I said above, if you're going to say that acknowledging this fact is the same as victim blaming, then every domestic abuse shelter and organization I've ever dealt with is guilty of victim blaming.  The point is that there's a difference between victim blaming and acknowledging statistics and reality.

You're avoiding the questions.  In no way am I saying that what he did is right or justifiable, but going on TV and lambasting the guy does absolutely nothing to rehabilitate him or get his wife help.  It amazes me that so often the liberals on this site abhor the death penalty and mandatory minimums, citing the point of the corrections system to rehabilitate people, yet they're so quick to jump on Carson and think that Rice should be demonized.  Where's the rehabilitation there?  That accomplishes nothing other than to draw attention to an issue without putting an ounce forward to fix it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I guess the two questions I'd like to see answered by those who think Carson is in the wrong here are:

1) Why should Rice be demonized?

Because this:



is well outside of what is generally considered acceptable behavior. If one doesn't think he needs to be publicly shamed, they need to watch that video again. And again.

2) What does demonizing Rice accomplish?

This requires the assumption that outrage towards Ray Rice is intended to accomplish anything--and is anything but a perfectly normal reaction to seeing someone do something so egregious towards someone who is relatively defenseless--and could be anybody's mother, sister, daughter, friend, or cousin. I seriously doubt that there is an orchestrated effort to accomplish a goal or meet an objective by lashing out at Ray Rice.

Thus, this isn't the right question to be asking.

And what is your opinion of the death penalty and mandatory minimums?

Those are two totally unrelated issues to Ray Rice throwing a haymaker at his fiancé, the NFL's response, and how the public perceives Ray Rice as a person, through the lens of what he did.

Unrelated to Rice directly?  Yes, but they're not unrelated to the purpose of the corrections system and society's role in supporting the corrections system, which is directly relevant here.  My guess, based on your lack of answering the question, is that you're opposed to both, correct?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I appreciate you putting words in my mouth, but the basis of your argument is shaky, at best.

You're trying to create a link between the people who think that Ray Rice should be publicly scolded for hitting his fiancé in the face, and those who are opposed to the death penalty and mandatory minimum sentences.

When, in fact, no such link exists, there's no reason for anyone to believe that this link exists, and the premise of this argument is nonsense.

Not at all; I am using the opinion of being opposed to the death penalty and mandatory minimums as a proxy.  But as you are opposed to the proxy, I'll avoid the proxy and just ask the (albeit more complicated question): what is the purpose of the corrections system?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Your questions are answered by the video. If Rice wants help, it's up to him to get it, no one else. If everyone just stayed quiet about the video, that would hardly help the situation.

If Rice wants help, what should happen to him?  If Rice doesn't want help, what should happen to him?

As for your second sentence, that's a false dichotomy.  In no way have I advocated for people to "just stay quiet".  There is a difference between speaking out and demonizing.  Neither I nor Carson has advocated in favor of "just staying quiet".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I appreciate you putting words in my mouth, but the basis of your argument is shaky, at best.

You're trying to create a link between the people who think that Ray Rice should be publicly scolded for hitting his fiancé in the face, and those who are opposed to the death penalty and mandatory minimum sentences.

When, in fact, no such link exists, there's no reason for anyone to believe that this link exists, and the premise of this argument is nonsense.

Not at all; I am using the opinion of being opposed to the death penalty and mandatory minimums as a proxy.  But as you are opposed to the proxy, I'll avoid the proxy and just ask the (albeit more complicated question): what is the purpose of the corrections system?

That's a question that many scholars can't sufficiently answer, let alone someone who isn't currently employed by (or hasn't spent significant time studying) the corrections system.

Let me rephrase it: In your ideal world, what would the purpose of the corrections system be?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Your questions are answered by the video. If Rice wants help, it's up to him to get it, no one else. If everyone just stayed quiet about the video, that would hardly help the situation.

If Rice wants help, what should happen to him?  If Rice doesn't want help, what should happen to him?

As for your second sentence, that's a false dichotomy.  In no way have I advocated for people to "just stay quiet".  There is a difference between speaking out and demonizing.  Neither I nor Carson has advocated in favor of "just staying quiet".

Why are you asking so many questions? Personally, I think he should be in jail, but I'm not on a jury nor can I bring charges, so asking me is a moot point.

You are saying that there is no point in people going on television criticizing him, because it does nothing to help him. The alternative to that is to really say nothing, which is not at all helpful.

I'm asking so many questions so that I can understand your logic.  So you think he should be in jail.  I'm assuming it's for a number of years if he wants help, but how long should he be in jail if he doesn't want help?  Asking you isn't a moot point, because the purpose of asking is to flesh out you rationale, which so far has been shaky at best.

I am not saying that there is no point in people going on television criticizing him; I'm saying there's no point in people going on television and demonizing him.  The difference there is key.  You seem to be substituting "criticize" with "demonize", and if you don't understand the difference, then it's no wonder you think Carson was wrong; however, the problem with that is that you are equating two verbs which absolutely do not mean the same thing.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I appreciate you putting words in my mouth, but the basis of your argument is shaky, at best.

You're trying to create a link between the people who think that Ray Rice should be publicly scolded for hitting his fiancé in the face, and those who are opposed to the death penalty and mandatory minimum sentences.

When, in fact, no such link exists, there's no reason for anyone to believe that this link exists, and the premise of this argument is nonsense.

Not at all; I am using the opinion of being opposed to the death penalty and mandatory minimums as a proxy.  But as you are opposed to the proxy, I'll avoid the proxy and just ask the (albeit more complicated question): what is the purpose of the corrections system?

That's a question that many scholars can't sufficiently answer, let alone someone who isn't currently employed by (or hasn't spent significant time studying) the corrections system.

Let me rephrase it: In your ideal world, what would the purpose of the corrections system be?

Still impossible to answer, because an conversations about a corrections system in an ideal world cannot be separated from how laws and societal norms are determined in an ideal world--or, what the expectations of the correctional system would idealistically be.

Using peoples' view on the corrections system as a proxy to criticizing Ray Rice is still a stretch, in my mind. I'm sure that if you researched this in-depth (no idea why you would), but you may find that plenty of pro-death penalty and pro-minimum mandatory sentencing supporters have taken Ray Rice to task via ESPN message boards, sports talk radio shows, and other outlets.

So you have no idea why we put people in prison?  Why do you think the corrections system should continue to exist?  Why should your tax dollars be spent on it?  If you can't answer that, then that's pretty incredible.

And I'm sure many of those people have, which just points out how illogical people often are.