Egyptian Vigilantes Kill Two Suspected Thieves

[Tiassa]

The Obvious Question

So ... what is this thread about? Mob justice? Anti-Islamic propaganda? Establishing order in an ante-postrevolutionary society? I mean, I'm pretty sure it's more than just an ego adventure, but that doesn't mean I can figure out what the discussion is actually about. What do we make of this? Well, in what context? There are several that apply, and as this isn't about religion—er ... um ... yeah, that kind of leaves a broad spectrum.

Human beings doing predictably stupid things? Well, hey, that's a place to start. A state so paralyzed that it must call out for vigilantes? And vigilantes taking it too far? Gosh, who could have imagined such an outcome?

And as much as I might pause to think about armed vigilantes patrolling American schools, well, no, it doesn't work. We don't have the same sort of societal upheaval taking place. Indeed, it is hard to apply such an event in any objective context outside itself.

So, yeah. What is this discussion supposed to be about?

 

[Balerion]

It's supposed to be about this event, and what it says about Egypt today, what it says about mob justice, perhaps even what it says about the Arab Spring. Are these people better off now? How do they correct their course from here? I don't mind a broad discussion.

I don't get the confusion. I posted this in the "ethics, morality, and justice" section. Is it really hard to pin down the context? And why is an obvious answer such a bad thing? You often make pseudo-blog posts in which your contribution amounts to something like, "I mean, come on, really?"

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Then you should have said so. Instead, you made the statement "They really aren't that valuable." You expect us to extrapolate a crude and callous "they aren't that valuable to me based on their geography" from such a blunt and obviously bigoted statement? We're not mind-readers.

I added *to me* to the original statement so there won't be any confusion.

You're splitting hairs. What your comment boils down to is that their lives are not of any value. You are now amending this to say, at least from what it seems, that they have no value to you, which is still a gross statement to make, but perhaps not bigoted.

Actually that was the intent from the start, but to say it is a "gross" statement you are going to have to objectify it a bit otherwise it's just going to get discarded as subjective unimportance.

Which is a disgusting statement to make regardless of the rationale, but it certainly appeared to be bigoted in nature.

Read my comment above. Same concept applies.

I see your wiki and raise you Dictionary.com:

and the World English Dictionary:

Dictionary.com references an attack. I asserted an opinion of value to me. That's about as unrelated as you can get. World dictionary might have supported your case except it defines the word "disparage" differently ("to speak contemptuously of"), so again it's a completely unrelated meaning.

So yes, your comment certainly falls within those parameters.

Not according to the evidence.

I can certainly see how this has been misconstrued. I was attempting to make a joking reference to my previous thread, and the heat that was brought by bleeding-heart morons eager for a cause to champion. If I were to spell it out completely, it would have read: "The religion of...wait, this doesn't have anything to do with religion..." I'll amend it now, for the sake of clarity. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that religion was responsible at all for this event. This clearly is about Egypt's societal deterioration since the Arab Spring.

I see, well for everyone who wasn't familiar with whatever your previous thread was, it wasn't a good introduction and as Tiassa pointed out it didn't clarify at all what you wanted to discuss.

Horrible attempt at a deflection, troll. I'm aware of all that, I just wanted to get everyone else's opinions on it. I like learning things from people who know more than I do about things.

Deflection of what? Giving you *my* opinion? Did that, you didn't like it, and you are apparently intentionally refraining from submitting your own opinion. Speaking of trolling, is this thread just an attempt to hit the report button on all opinions you don't like? It would certainly seem that way.

 

[Balerion]

I added *to me* to the original statement so there won't be any confusion.

That doesn't make it appear any less bigoted. You're going to need to explain why they're not valuable to you. And don't be surprised if more people take offense at your words, clarification and all.

Actually that was the intend from the start, but to say it is a "gross" statement you are going to have to objectify it a bit otherwise it's just going to get discarded as subjective unimportance.

I see. So when you say something subjective, it's a true statement, but when I or someone else says something subjective, it's not valid?

My feelings don't have be objective to be valid. Your opinion is gross. It is objectively crass and crude, and objectively dehumanizing of an entire people simply based on their geographical location, and those are criteria enough for my subjective valuation of "gross."

Read my comment above. Same concept applies.

Yes, you apparently don't believe anything but your own opinion is worth any consideration. I can objectively call that solipsism.

Dictionary.com references an attack. I asserted an opinion of value to me. That's about as unrelated as you can get.

I don't think it's a stretch to call your words an attack on those people.

World dictionary might have supported your case except it defines the word "disparage" differently ("to speak contemptuously of"), so again it's a completely unrelated meaning.

You are hopelessly wrong. I also noticed you left an important part out of the definition. To wit:

"disparage": To speak contemptuously of; belittle

"belittle": To consider or speak of (something) as less valuable or important than it really is; disparage

So, again, hate speech.

I see, well for everyone who wasn't familiar with whatever your previous thread was, it wasn't a good introduction and as Tiassa pointed out it didn't clarify at all what you wanted to discuss.

Well, the opening phrase certainly was ill-conceived, I admit that. However, I don't see what's so hard to understand about the thread's purpose. We're located in a certain forum, and I asked what everyone thinks of the event. Feel free to take it wherever you think it should go, given where the thread is located.

Deflection of what? Giving you *my* opinion? Did that, you didn't like it, and you are apparently intentionally refraining from submitting your own opinion. Speaking of trolling, is this thread just an attempt to hit the report button on all opinions you don't like? It would certainly seem that way.

This has nothing to do with a difference of opinion. It has to do with you saying something that I found to be disgusting, which was your callous dismissal of an entire people as having no value. Even if it had nothing to do with their religion, the idea that you would consider their lives to be of no value simply because of where they live is reprehensible. And I don't believe for a second that you didn't expect precisely this kind of reaction. There's no possible way you've ever said "Their lives don't have value" in any forum or gathering without someone taking you to task for it. You must have known you were going to get this kind of response. This is why I think you're merely trolling.

 

[Bells]

It's supposed to be about this event, and what it says about Egypt today, what it says about mob justice, perhaps even what it says about the Arab Spring. Are these people better off now? How do they correct their course from here? I don't mind a broad discussion.

I don't get the confusion. I posted this in the "ethics, morality, and justice" section. Is it really hard to pin down the context? And why is an obvious answer such a bad thing? You often make pseudo-blog posts in which your contribution amounts to something like, "I mean, come on, really?"

1) Police in Egypt are on strike:

Thousands of officers and low-ranking policemen have broken ranks, staging protests and waging strikes against what they say is the politicization of the force by President Mohammed Morsi, who came from the Muslim Brotherhood, and his interior minister.

[Source]

Thousands of policemen are now on strike to demand better working conditions and they also refuse to confront widespread protests against President Morsi's leadership.

2) The Government and the Attorney General of Egypt had encouraged the population to become involved in police work by telling the civilian population to detain people and to hand them over to police:

The killings come a week after the attorney general's office encouraged civilians to arrest lawbreakers and hand them over to police.

3) There had apparently been a spate of attacks on girls and also a series of sexual attacks and rapes on women in the town:

Mamdouh al-Muneer, spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood group in the Gharbiya governorate, told The Associated Press that the lynchings followed a spate of rapes in the area. He said there have been a number of incidents in the past several months of girls being abducted while leaving school.

4) The two who were lynched in this vigilante attack had apparently attempted to steal a rickshaw that had a small girl in it when they were attacked by the general public:

The state-run newspaper Ahram reported on its website that the events in Samanod began when the two men were dragged in the street after being caught "red-handed" trying to steal a motorized rickshaw. Witnesses said they were also accused of kidnapping a girl inside the rickshaw, but that she escaped unharmed.

Another two men were threatened with lynching for their suspected attacks on little girls in the area:

Residents also threatened to lynch another two men accused of involvement in attacks on girls

In short, this is what happens when a country is in a state of anarchy and the public are encouraged to take matters into their own hands when the police are on strike. Especially so when young children are being attacked and they perceived another abduction attempt on another little girl. In 2012, a man was killed by vigilantes after he had murdered a man who was trying to stop him from stealing his car.

To put it into perspective, when a child rapist or murderer is caught and it is made public, you will often have a crowd at the police station or court house and I can assure you, if that individual was given to the crowd, the result would probably not be dissimilar.

This is why vigilante justice is bad and especially why the public should never ever be encouraged to partake in it and why a police force should not take political sides.

So which obvious answer were you looking for?

 

[Balerion]

So which obvious answer were you looking for?

I'm not looking for anything but a discussion. It's a fucking discussion forum. Is it really that hard to figure out?

 

[Bells]

Firstly, do not swear at me please.

Secondly, what aspect of this subject and/or issue do you wish to discuss?

Vigilante justice? Anarchy on a State level? Should the public be allowed to beat suspected child abductors or rapists to death? Should the police go on strike?

There are many things from that article that are worthy of discussion. Posting a small snippet and then expecting other people to do the work for you doesn't cut it.

So pick one or more or give a clear distinction of which direction you want this thread to take.

 

[Balerion]

Firstly, do not swear at me please.

Secondly, what aspect of this subject and/or issue do you wish to discuss?

Vigilante justice? Anarchy on a State level? Should the public be allowed to beat suspected child abductors or rapists to death? Should the police go on strike?

There are many things from that article that are worthy of discussion. Posting a small snippet and then expecting other people to do the work for you doesn't cut it.

So pick one or more or give a clear distinction of which direction you want this thread to take.

No, you don't get to bully me into choosing a direction for the thread. I am under no obligation to steer the conversation. I simply posted a news story and said "What do you make of this?" You are free to take it wherever you please, but it's not on me to say "Okay, talk about this" unless, of course, there is a particular direction I want the thread to go.

So back off. And swearing isn't against the rules, so stop it.

 

[Bells]

You want people to discuss the thread but as the thread starter, you give no indication of what or how it is to be discussed.

So "talk about this".. Talk about what exactly?

How about you start off the discussion? You know, since you started this thread?

Why is that article important to you? Is there something in the article you wish for people to look at in particular? Or do you want a free for all and everyone can just pick a topic and run with it?

When people start threads, they usually discuss what they are linking. This is not a news site. One does not just give the story and leave it there and expect everyone else to do the work for you.

To reiterate what others have also been asking..

What is this thread supposed to be about?

 

[Balerion]

You want people to discuss the thread but as the thread starter, you give no indication of what or how it is to be discussed.

So "talk about this".. Talk about what exactly?

How about you start off the discussion? You know, since you started this thread?

Why is that article important to you? Is there something in the article you wish for people to look at in particular? Or do you want a free for all and everyone can just pick a topic and run with it?

When people start threads, they usually discuss what they are linking. This is not a news site. One does not just give the story and leave it there and expect everyone else to do the work for you.

To reiterate what others have also been asking..

What is this thread supposed to be about?

Unless you can show me that what I've done is against the rules, this conversation is over.

 

[Bells]

Unless you can show me that what I've done is against the rules, this conversation is over.

*Raises eyebrows*

Who has said anything about this thread being against the rules? Where was this said?

It seems to have escaped your notice, Balerion, but people in this thread just want to know what it is meant to be about.

So what is this discussion supposed to be about?

If you do not even know what this discussion is meant to be about, and you started it, what is the point of the thread at all?

 

[Asguard]

Belive that James used to go around locking and dumping threads which were just news stories with no argument or debate from the opening poster

 

[Tiassa]

No Fun

In short, this is what happens when a country is in a state of anarchy and the public are encouraged to take matters into their own hands when the police are on strike.

It's the part of revolution that just isn't any fun. And it's the part where so many revolutions fail. Consolidation. Give frustrated people an excuse, and, well, things happen.

Beaten and lynched by an angry mob? Sounds about right for the conditions. Economically and politically frustrated people feeling righteous in a moment when they think they can. They're not yet post-revolutionary. These are agonizing seizures of societal conscience to watch, but it is unfortunately a part of the process. To the upside, at least they weren't stacked in tires and burned alive. Oh, hey, remember the bit in Nepal where they were literally skinning one another alive? It's okay if you don't. I'd rather not remember, myself.

Yeah, it's grim. They'll get through it, or they'll start all over again. Maybe they'll settle on the second or third new tyrant, but this can't go on forever. Egypt is not about to erase itself. Meanwhile, it's kind of a slow-motion atrocity when so many of the major players don't seem to understand the fundamental concept of functional democracy.

 

[Asguard]

It's the part of revolution that just isn't any fun. And it's the part where so many revolutions fail. Consolidation. Give frustrated people an excuse, and, well, things happen.

Beaten and lynched by an angry mob? Sounds about right for the conditions. Economically and politically frustrated people feeling righteous in a moment when they think they can. They're not yet post-revolutionary. These are agonizing seizures of societal conscience to watch, but it is unfortunately a part of the process. To the upside, at least they weren't stacked in tires and burned alive. Oh, hey, remember the bit in Nepal where they were literally skinning one another alive? It's okay if you don't. I'd rather not remember, myself.

Yeah, it's grim. They'll get through it, or they'll start all over again. Maybe they'll settle on the second or third new tyrant, but this can't go on forever. Egypt is not about to erase itself. Meanwhile, it's kind of a slow-motion atrocity when so many of the major players don't seem to understand the fundamental concept of functional democracy.

See the fact that it could have been worse for them simply isn't good enough and as you point out the world has seen enough of these to know whats going to happen. Why the hell didn't we act already? Why weren't members of the burocracy from countries like Australia sent to teach them HOW to set up a government the way we did for the Solomon Islands? Why weren't senior cops sent from the AFP to advise them how to run a police force, why weren't there parliamentary delegations to show them how to set up a parliament, and judges to show them how to set up a Constitution, why weren't members of the AEC sent to show them how to run elections

THIS is where the world should intervene, not in stupid wars but in starting countries so that they get the leg up and can skip this senseless violence

 

[Balerion]

It's the part of revolution that just isn't any fun. And it's the part where so many revolutions fail. Consolidation. Give frustrated people an excuse, and, well, things happen.

Beaten and lynched by an angry mob? Sounds about right for the conditions. Economically and politically frustrated people feeling righteous in a moment when they think they can. They're not yet post-revolutionary. These are agonizing seizures of societal conscience to watch, but it is unfortunately a part of the process. To the upside, at least they weren't stacked in tires and burned alive. Oh, hey, remember the bit in Nepal where they were literally skinning one another alive? It's okay if you don't. I'd rather not remember, myself.

Yeah, it's grim. They'll get through it, or they'll start all over again. Maybe they'll settle on the second or third new tyrant, but this can't go on forever. Egypt is not about to erase itself. Meanwhile, it's kind of a slow-motion atrocity when so many of the major players don't seem to understand the fundamental concept of functional democracy.

Isn't there a threat that this kind of behavior becomes part of the culture? I know riots happen everywhere, but if the authorities--such as they are--are asking the people to help them in bringing criminals to justice by physically apprehending them, aren't they risking a similar situation to Pakistan, where vigilantism is a regular occurrence? (not saying that's why Pakistan has vigilantes, just showing that there are places where such behavior is part of the national identity)

And is sitting back and letting it play out the best option?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am ok with middle-east Muslims killing other Muslims.


They really aren't that valuable to me.

Disgusting!

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

That's subjective.

so are bans and infractions for hate speech

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

You just spent a quite a bit of effort agreeing with me. Yes I realize that "disgusting" is subjective and that was my point. You find it disgusting, but to say "it is disgusting" means that some kind of object or property of an object exists in objective reality that is "disgusting". That would make it fully measurable and exists whether or not a person is around to interpret it. That is of course something you cannot demonstrate because "disgusting" is subjective and not objective. If you can demonstrate otheriwse, you are welcome to. Until that point, all you have is an opinion just like me. Let's however expore the inverse of my opinion because you are so against it. Why should I (or anyone else) find middle-eastern Muslims valuable? Just saying that people are inherently valuable isn't an argument as it is again entirely subjective. Let's go for some real objective reasons and evidence.

There are posters here who would skin you alive for what you just said. They would consider you a psychopath, a sociopath and would not shy away from calling you that here in public.

 

[wynn]

The religion of...wait, no, that's not...nevermind. This has nothing to do with religion.

url=http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-vigilantes-hang-2-thieves-public-133749206.html]Full story[/url].

So what do we make of this?

Hmm, what do we make of this?

We make of this that the poster of this OP is pissed off at the Universe* for not being the way he wants it to be.

(*That includes people.)

I'm not looking for anything but a discussion.

It seems you are first and foremost looking for validation, for support for your views.

It's a fucking discussion forum. Is it really that hard to figure out?

Bah. If anything, this is more like a pseudo-therapy forum.

 

[Bells]

Isn't there a threat that this kind of behavior becomes part of the culture? I know riots happen everywhere, but if the authorities--such as they are--are asking the people to help them in bringing criminals to justice by physically apprehending them, aren't they risking a similar situation to Pakistan, where vigilantism is a regular occurrence? (not saying that's why Pakistan has vigilantes, just showing that there are places where such behavior is part of the national identity)

And is sitting back and letting it play out the best option?

The police are on strike and do not like the country's leadership. The Government asked that people make citizen's arrests..

Egypt is in anarchy. It is literally at war with itself due to the political upheaval's they have been through. It is in complete disarray. The public is angry and the police are virtually inactive. The country itself is a powder keg ready to blow up and after an apparent spate of rapes and kidnappings of young girls walking to and from school, the public saw two men apparently trying to kidnap a girl in a rickshaw, or thought they were, and they turned on them. This is not cultural at all.

You cannot really compare the two at all. Pakistan has a stable government and stable police force. Egypt does not.. at all. So I cannot even see how you could say it would become similar to Pakistan.

Also, what option would you propose? Sanctions on a Government and country that is going through this kind of upheaval (because we all know how well that works....) or sending in troops to restore order?