"There is no question that, uh, you know, hateful rhetoric no matter which side it comes from - right or left - is something that is detrimental to our society. This has been a big problem. Our strength in this country has traditionally been in our unity. And we are allowing all kinds of circumstances to divide us and make us hateful toward each other. And the rhetoric is extremely immature, divisive, and is not helpful when you have outside forces uh - global Islamic radical jihadists who want to destroy us. Why would we be doing that to ourselves? We at some point have got to become more mature. No question the hateful rhetoric exacerbates the situation and we should be doing all we can to engage in intelligent, civil discussion about our differences. That's how we solve problems. we don't ever solve them with hateful rhetoric ... I think both sides should tone down their rhetoric, and engage in civil discussion."
_____
I guess Carson would side with the Charlie Hebdo killers as well ... after all, they were provoked by "hateful rhetoric" according to their apologists.
Maybe it's not the same thing, but I haven't taken a logic class so I can't put my finger on the reason why.
You’re right. I should not take the post’s version of Carson’s comment. I should read Carson’s comment in context, which sounds very different than the context of the title of this article.
Thanks for pointing that out.
However, there ARE people saying that rhetoric is a cause of violence .... this goes way back to the Gabby Gifford incident and probably before ... also the Benghazi ‘video’ incident. It is the left that usually uses the rhetoric-causes-violence meme. We should be careful not to use it.