Ben Carson Defends (Girlfriend Beating) Ray Rice

[DrScholl]

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. 

[DrScholl]

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 is somehow unfair. 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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

You are quite argumentative. I know the difference between the two words, I'm not ignorant. There really is no debate here, Rice was wrong and that's what my point is. Why don't you answer some questions yourself; How was Rice demonized? Do you think he should have been fired? Do you think his fiancee holds responsibility for him hitting her? State exactly what your point is, because you aren't making any sense and it seems you only want to argue, as usual.