The Merck Manual page suggests that most of the neurological effects associated with HIV/AIDS are due to the development of cancerous growths in the brain. They also point out infection with Toxoplasmosis and Cryptococcus as potentially causing dementia and personality changes, but in listing the causes of death they list dementia and wasting as being separate entities from opportunistic infections.
So yeah, HIV by itself will lead to death, it's just that in many cases, the destruction of the immune system allows something else to do it first.
You're partially correct. It's incomplete disinfection that poses the greatest risk, because the survivors are often those bugs best suited to survive repeated treatments. A clean sweep, however, solves the problem. By way of illustration, the rate of hospital-originating resistance Staph infections is much higher in the US than in Europe, where they test pretty much everyone for the bug on admittance and perform eradication procedures on anyone carrying it.
It would be silly to suggest that they add this anti-biofilm virus to, say, bath soap or dish detergeant, but in places like catheters and dialysis equipment where biofilm acts as a nigh-indestructible reservoir of infection it could be really useful.
I'm not saying the drug pricing situation in the U.S. is ideal, but seriously, use your head. That pill that as "produced for $1" was developed as a result of highly risky undertaking lasting a period of ten years or more. The widely quoted estimate of the cost of bringing a drug to market, $800 million, may be overinflated by as much as 50% (depending on who you believe), but that's still a lot of money. And of course, to have the money the money to carry out these projects, drug companies need investors, who expect a return on their investment.
Of course, there's a lot of fat that can be cut. Huge amounts are spent on promotion because their are often multiple drugs targeted at the same condition--this is pretty wasteful (though largely unavoidable, since all companies have similar objectives in setting research priorities). And all too often, drugs are brought to market in spite of their economic value rather than because of it. These are things that will likely require regulation to fix, because the industry has no incentive to do so.
And the suggestion that drugs are made with the intent of treatment rather than cure is downright absurd. Why don't you think for a minute about the statins, say, which treat high cholesterol and which are probably the best selling drugs in the developed world. Of course, nobody would need them if they'd get off their fat asses and maybe have a salad once in a while, but they don't, so they end up being on the drug forever. If there was some magic bullet to eliminate high cholesterol instantly, the company that found it would charge $100,000 a dose, and it would steal be cheaper for the insurance companies to pay for than a lifetime of the current stuff. I could include more examples, but I'm not trying to be exhaustive here.
Try to separate your outrage from your intellect in the future. The sorry state of healthcare in the U.S. makes me as made as anyone, but there's plenty of blame to go around without tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
"I'm proposing we accept science's ability to explain things up to its ability to do so; but that we recognize that there may very well be a point where science won't be able to answer a question"
See, I've read this argument before, and the problem I have with it is very simple: we often don't know how much we don't know. In the late 18th century, a lot of very bright people figured we knew pretty much all there was to know about the nature of matter and energy, and then some other bright folks came along and showed that there was an enormous amount that was (and remains) largely beyond us. So how do we distinguish between that which is Unknowable, and that which is merely unknown? How do you know that what you ascribe to God today won't be relegated to perfectly explicable physical phenomenon tomorrow, or a hundred years from now?
I forget who wrote it, but in a review of the book 'Darwin's Black Box' some theologian pointed out how if you draw a line between the known and unknown and label the unknown 'God did this,' then every new discovery pushes that line a little further, effectively marginalizing God, which the reviewer described as "bad science, and worse theology."
So, in summary: why the need to claim divine action just because a more prosaic answer happens to be elusive at your particular place and time? What do you gain from it?
"Personally I don't think private companies give a toss about making discoveries and getting involved in innovation, they just want to make a profit."
Of course that's what they're interested in. Why would you expect anything else? I mean, presumably, any corporate entity that has the money/material to invest significantly in space flight will have plenty of stockholders to keep happy...do you think they would support the investment of their money in extremely high risk ventures with minimal return in the near future? Of course not--they want to make their score and get out. Which is not to say that this is the ideal model, but it's precisely what you'd expect from capitalism. In economics speak, discovery and exploration have positive externalities in excess of the individual's return on investment. We might all be better off if they did the research, but because they can't get paid for it, they don't do it, which is why the government gets involved.
"If so many people had departed as suggested in the Bible, then many critical tasks would have gone undone or would have been performed poorly due to low staffing or unskilled workers performing the tasks in the place of the slaves."
Do you mean to suggest that something written in the BIBLE might not be literal truth? Boy, them's fightin' words!
It's kind of funny how the religious types will see "evidence" whereas those who aren't religious won't. Kind of makes you wonder about self selection, huh?
Let me turn your own statement back on its head. It's not that nonbelievers refuse to accept the obvious evidence of God's existence, it's that we see the world and don't see the need to postulate anything supernatural beyond it in order to explain it. And when we look at the Bible, we don't see His Own Revealed Truth; rather, we see the writings of a bunch of ancient people who certainly believed what they were saying, being touted as evidence of His existence by people who still read it and believe. The fact that we see none of the evidence those folks refer to makes it completely unfathomable to us that people would continue to believe in religion.
First, given the cacophony currently raised over human carbon emissions and their (potential? likely?) effect on the environment, and our lack of any meaningful progress on that issue, what implementable lessons do you hope to learn on Mars in a useful time scale that could be easily translated to Earth?) In keeping with your vaccine analogy, there's a difference between experimental efficacy and clinical effectiveness--treatment that works well in white lab rats doesn't necesarrily work in the real world.
Secondly, while the lower gravity of Mars will likely result in the loss of any kind of atmosphere we try to add, I think it's a bit naive to suggest we can accurately forecast the possible effects of our actions. And while there may be no native Martians at risk, I'd argue that most people do place some value on keeping wilderness unspoiled. Other than your argument of necessity, is there a reason we should protect national parks, but do whatever we like to other planets?
I hate to be the Luddite in the room, but given our track record on this planet, I'm not really sure I want us to be inflicting our particular brand of 'progress' on another world. At least not until we know a little bit more about what we'd be losing in terms of the current Martian environment (such as it is). Until then, maybe we should just stick to the planet we're already monkeying around with.
The article says that any kind of though that activates the frontal parts of the brain will work. They give the example of doing mental math, or mentally singing a song. So what benefits, exactly, do you expect you'll gain from doing this over time? I mean, hypothetically, let's say you recognize a way to subconciously turn it on and off without have to explicitly think about anything--what other field do you anticipate that to impact?
I don't think anyone is arguing that 13 year olds should be playing it, just that an adults only rating may cause stores to refuse to carry it outright, which hurts A) the company and B) the gamer. What I find ironic is that the same go-arounds that adult gamers will have to use to get the game (downloading from a legit service, illegal download, buying online) will probably also work just fine for underage gamers who want to try it. So it's more about the message (getting tough on games) than the effect.
This might not have been the effect you were going for, but I think if they make another Mad Max, I want to see some pierced, snarling degenerate road warrior tooling around in one of those faux wood sided PT cruisers. That'd be outstanding.
Are you ten years old? I ask because your post displays not only an alarmingly immature sense of moral reasoning, but a basic lack of common sense.
See, the law determines what's okay, and what's not okay. It also determines how to deal with people who do things which are not okay. Nowhere (that I know of) in the laws of the US does it say that people who break the laws are now fair game for anyone who wants to do anything for them. Yes, they may be imprisoned, or sentenced to die, but this too is covered under the rules. If, instead of the rule of law, we embraced your system of justice, it would be totally cool to blow away criminals: murderers, rapists, robbers, jay walkers, shoplifters, whatever. The RIAA wouldn't have to sue you for downloading music: they could just send a team of hitmen to blow up your house. Maybe that would be more in keeping with your sense of what's fair.
Those of us who are not ten years old will continue doing things the old way. Thanks. Bye.
There's nothing wrong with self defense, and in most places the law says that anyone who breaks into your home can be reasonably assumed to pose a threat to you, which means that if you shoot him, it's permited under law.
My point, from the first post on, is that a different standard exists for protecting your property than for protecting your life. So while it's okay to shoot a thief in your living room, it would not be okay to follow the thief home, shoot him, and take your stuff back. I would think that this would be obvious, but some folks on/. seem to feel that at the first sign of a transgression they have a Constitutionally protected right to execute the offender, desecrate his corpse, and say mean things about his mother, regardless of whether the thief poses a threat.
Oh, come on, why stop there? If somebody robs you, don't just shoot him--find out where he lives, and rob him right back! And hey, he might have a wife, or maybe some daughters--I bet if you rape them, that'll make other robbers think twice before they mess with you! But maybe that's too much. Maybe you should just burn his house down. After all, he's a criminal, so he doesn't deserve the protection of laws.
But see, the laws don't stop being laws just because somebody breaks them. Nor does the law give you the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner (apart from cases of self defense) just because you feel you're entitled to do whatever you like to somebody who robs you. So go ahead, follow those tracks in the snow to the punk who took your TV and shoot him in the face. Make sure to call the cops when you're done--I'm sure they'll want to thank you for administering a little Texas justice. Or else they'll want to arrest you for murder, one or the other.
Wait, wait, wait. Am I supposed to be a commie, or a Nazi? I'm confused.
Let me clarify my position, since you seem a little confused, too. I'm not suggesting you sleep with your door open, all your valuables stacked for convenient loading, and a few icy beers in the fridge for anyone who wants to stop in and rob you. Of course, you have an obligation to protect yourself from crime. I'm not suggesting you should expect (or desire) the government to be there 100% of the time to protect you. And good for you if you're armed and ready to defend yourself.
My point, very simply, is that there's a difference between using deadly force to save your life, and using deadly force to save a piece of property. I believe most states have self defense laws based on the principle of 'castling'--i.e., if someone breaks into your house, you can assume they're a threat, and respond lethally. I have no problem with that. Fire away.
On the other hand, if you're walking home some night, and you see a guy walking out of your building carrying your stuff, then I think it's insane to suggest that it's okay to shoot him for it. By all means, pull a gun, order him to freeze, call the cops, but your right to your property doesn't outweigh another human's right to life, even if that human is a thieving, degenerate asshole. So spare me the nonsensical historical references; my unwillingness to take a life for the sake of some cash doesn't make me a sheep.
If I draw on a burglar, and tell him to get out, and he makes a move at me, then absolutely, at that point I'd say that the threat he poses to me justifies a violent response. But if grabs my VCR and runs away, I don't have the right to shoot him in the back for 'violating the sanctity of my home.' Seriously, try it some time, and let me know how you enjoy going to prison for assault with a deadly weapon.
I agree with you 100%. It would be foolish to trust that there will always be police or other authorities handy to protect you, and though I don't own a gun myself, I fully support responsible gun ownership for the purpose of self defense. But my post was in response to someone who essentially stated that he feels it's appropriate to use any measure of force he likes in responding to an attack, even if it's just a matter of property theft. And while I'd be willing to kill to protect myself and my family, I think it's insane to suggest that it's okay to shoot somebody for stealing your car, or snatching your wallet. Even if the guy is a criminal scumbag, do I really want to be the guy who shot somebody in the face for some cash, or a piece of property that's probably insured anyway?
I didn't realize that shooting somebody over a TV set was supporting the peacable rule of law and our free society. See, I thought that the reason behind having laws, and police, and courts, and prisons, is so that when somebody violates my rights, he can be caught, judged, and punished fairly, thus eliminating the need for heat of the moment justice.
As for upholding the rule of law, isn't that what I do by paying my taxes, supporting government officials who make just laws, and participating (as necessary) in the process of the criminal justice system? I didn't realize I also needed to personally get out there and play Dirty Harry in order to keep the barbarians at bay. But thanks for clarifying things--it's so simple now that I know that my only two choices are sniveling submission to the criminals, and terminating anyone who crosses me with extreme prejudice.
You're right--when I was robbed, it was at gunpoint, and there were many, many sleepless nights spent afterwards reliving that moment of being completely unprotected from the menace posed by another person. I would gladly kill an intruder if I had to in order to protect myself or my family in my home, but that's a last resort situation. To reframe it in terms of my earlier analogy, if a burglar is armed, or if he comes at me when I warn him that I'm armed, then at that point I'd pull the trigger. On the other hand, if he takes off with a TV set, I'm not going to shoot him for it. It's like that debate over the 'castling' principle not too long ago--the fear was that if you eliminate the requirement in the law that the victim attempt to make a run for it before using lethal force, you'd get people blowing away each other rather than letting the cops handle it.
I certainly don't want to sit on my hands while some asshole carries my stereo out the front door, but if you shoot somebody to protect property, as opposed to protecting another person, or your own life, then you've essentially just killed someone for the sake of that piece of property. Do you really think that's a reasonable course of action, regardless of what value you'd place on that particular thief's life? And where do you draw the line? Is it cool to shoot somebody for stealing your plasma TV, but not for stealing your kid's bike?
Justice is about restraint: restraint of those who would hurt other people for their own benefit AND restraint of those who would otherwise lash out in righteous anger. And this, of course, is a matter totally separate from defense of one's self.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec17/ch199/ch199a.html
The Merck Manual page suggests that most of the neurological effects associated with HIV/AIDS are due to the development of cancerous growths in the brain. They also point out infection with Toxoplasmosis and Cryptococcus as potentially causing dementia and personality changes, but in listing the causes of death they list dementia and wasting as being separate entities from opportunistic infections.
So yeah, HIV by itself will lead to death, it's just that in many cases, the destruction of the immune system allows something else to do it first.
You're partially correct. It's incomplete disinfection that poses the greatest risk, because the survivors are often those bugs best suited to survive repeated treatments. A clean sweep, however, solves the problem. By way of illustration, the rate of hospital-originating resistance Staph infections is much higher in the US than in Europe, where they test pretty much everyone for the bug on admittance and perform eradication procedures on anyone carrying it.
It would be silly to suggest that they add this anti-biofilm virus to, say, bath soap or dish detergeant, but in places like catheters and dialysis equipment where biofilm acts as a nigh-indestructible reservoir of infection it could be really useful.
I'm not saying the drug pricing situation in the U.S. is ideal, but seriously, use your head. That pill that as "produced for $1" was developed as a result of highly risky undertaking lasting a period of ten years or more. The widely quoted estimate of the cost of bringing a drug to market, $800 million, may be overinflated by as much as 50% (depending on who you believe), but that's still a lot of money. And of course, to have the money the money to carry out these projects, drug companies need investors, who expect a return on their investment.
Of course, there's a lot of fat that can be cut. Huge amounts are spent on promotion because their are often multiple drugs targeted at the same condition--this is pretty wasteful (though largely unavoidable, since all companies have similar objectives in setting research priorities). And all too often, drugs are brought to market in spite of their economic value rather than because of it. These are things that will likely require regulation to fix, because the industry has no incentive to do so.
And the suggestion that drugs are made with the intent of treatment rather than cure is downright absurd. Why don't you think for a minute about the statins, say, which treat high cholesterol and which are probably the best selling drugs in the developed world. Of course, nobody would need them if they'd get off their fat asses and maybe have a salad once in a while, but they don't, so they end up being on the drug forever. If there was some magic bullet to eliminate high cholesterol instantly, the company that found it would charge $100,000 a dose, and it would steal be cheaper for the insurance companies to pay for than a lifetime of the current stuff. I could include more examples, but I'm not trying to be exhaustive here.
Try to separate your outrage from your intellect in the future. The sorry state of healthcare in the U.S. makes me as made as anyone, but there's plenty of blame to go around without tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.
"I'm proposing we accept science's ability to explain things up to its ability to do so; but that we recognize that there may very well be a point where science won't be able to answer a question"
See, I've read this argument before, and the problem I have with it is very simple: we often don't know how much we don't know. In the late 18th century, a lot of very bright people figured we knew pretty much all there was to know about the nature of matter and energy, and then some other bright folks came along and showed that there was an enormous amount that was (and remains) largely beyond us. So how do we distinguish between that which is Unknowable, and that which is merely unknown? How do you know that what you ascribe to God today won't be relegated to perfectly explicable physical phenomenon tomorrow, or a hundred years from now?
I forget who wrote it, but in a review of the book 'Darwin's Black Box' some theologian pointed out how if you draw a line between the known and unknown and label the unknown 'God did this,' then every new discovery pushes that line a little further, effectively marginalizing God, which the reviewer described as "bad science, and worse theology."
So, in summary: why the need to claim divine action just because a more prosaic answer happens to be elusive at your particular place and time? What do you gain from it?
"Personally I don't think private companies give a toss about making discoveries and getting involved in innovation, they just want to make a profit."
Of course that's what they're interested in. Why would you expect anything else? I mean, presumably, any corporate entity that has the money/material to invest significantly in space flight will have plenty of stockholders to keep happy...do you think they would support the investment of their money in extremely high risk ventures with minimal return in the near future? Of course not--they want to make their score and get out. Which is not to say that this is the ideal model, but it's precisely what you'd expect from capitalism. In economics speak, discovery and exploration have positive externalities in excess of the individual's return on investment. We might all be better off if they did the research, but because they can't get paid for it, they don't do it, which is why the government gets involved.
"If so many people had departed as suggested in the Bible, then many critical tasks would have gone undone or would have been performed poorly due to low staffing or unskilled workers performing the tasks in the place of the slaves."
Do you mean to suggest that something written in the BIBLE might not be literal truth? Boy, them's fightin' words!
It's kind of funny how the religious types will see "evidence" whereas those who aren't religious won't. Kind of makes you wonder about self selection, huh?
Let me turn your own statement back on its head. It's not that nonbelievers refuse to accept the obvious evidence of God's existence, it's that we see the world and don't see the need to postulate anything supernatural beyond it in order to explain it. And when we look at the Bible, we don't see His Own Revealed Truth; rather, we see the writings of a bunch of ancient people who certainly believed what they were saying, being touted as evidence of His existence by people who still read it and believe. The fact that we see none of the evidence those folks refer to makes it completely unfathomable to us that people would continue to believe in religion.
All a matter of perspective, you see.
First, given the cacophony currently raised over human carbon emissions and their (potential? likely?) effect on the environment, and our lack of any meaningful progress on that issue, what implementable lessons do you hope to learn on Mars in a useful time scale that could be easily translated to Earth?) In keeping with your vaccine analogy, there's a difference between experimental efficacy and clinical effectiveness--treatment that works well in white lab rats doesn't necesarrily work in the real world.
Secondly, while the lower gravity of Mars will likely result in the loss of any kind of atmosphere we try to add, I think it's a bit naive to suggest we can accurately forecast the possible effects of our actions. And while there may be no native Martians at risk, I'd argue that most people do place some value on keeping wilderness unspoiled. Other than your argument of necessity, is there a reason we should protect national parks, but do whatever we like to other planets?
I hate to be the Luddite in the room, but given our track record on this planet, I'm not really sure I want us to be inflicting our particular brand of 'progress' on another world. At least not until we know a little bit more about what we'd be losing in terms of the current Martian environment (such as it is). Until then, maybe we should just stick to the planet we're already monkeying around with.
I think this falls under the 'Aliens versus Predator' precept. "Whoever wins...we lose."
The article says that any kind of though that activates the frontal parts of the brain will work. They give the example of doing mental math, or mentally singing a song. So what benefits, exactly, do you expect you'll gain from doing this over time? I mean, hypothetically, let's say you recognize a way to subconciously turn it on and off without have to explicitly think about anything--what other field do you anticipate that to impact?
I don't think anyone is arguing that 13 year olds should be playing it, just that an adults only rating may cause stores to refuse to carry it outright, which hurts A) the company and B) the gamer. What I find ironic is that the same go-arounds that adult gamers will have to use to get the game (downloading from a legit service, illegal download, buying online) will probably also work just fine for underage gamers who want to try it. So it's more about the message (getting tough on games) than the effect.
Boy, I'm glad that's settled. Now I can get back to livin' free and steppin' easy.
This might not have been the effect you were going for, but I think if they make another Mad Max, I want to see some pierced, snarling degenerate road warrior tooling around in one of those faux wood sided PT cruisers. That'd be outstanding.
No, stupid, I'd shoot him under the table, rob his corpse, and rape his wife. He's cheating, so the rules don't count for him.
Are you ten years old? I ask because your post displays not only an alarmingly immature sense of moral reasoning, but a basic lack of common sense. See, the law determines what's okay, and what's not okay. It also determines how to deal with people who do things which are not okay. Nowhere (that I know of) in the laws of the US does it say that people who break the laws are now fair game for anyone who wants to do anything for them. Yes, they may be imprisoned, or sentenced to die, but this too is covered under the rules. If, instead of the rule of law, we embraced your system of justice, it would be totally cool to blow away criminals: murderers, rapists, robbers, jay walkers, shoplifters, whatever. The RIAA wouldn't have to sue you for downloading music: they could just send a team of hitmen to blow up your house. Maybe that would be more in keeping with your sense of what's fair. Those of us who are not ten years old will continue doing things the old way. Thanks. Bye.
There's nothing wrong with self defense, and in most places the law says that anyone who breaks into your home can be reasonably assumed to pose a threat to you, which means that if you shoot him, it's permited under law. My point, from the first post on, is that a different standard exists for protecting your property than for protecting your life. So while it's okay to shoot a thief in your living room, it would not be okay to follow the thief home, shoot him, and take your stuff back. I would think that this would be obvious, but some folks on /. seem to feel that at the first sign of a transgression they have a Constitutionally protected right to execute the offender, desecrate his corpse, and say mean things about his mother, regardless of whether the thief poses a threat.
Oh, come on, why stop there? If somebody robs you, don't just shoot him--find out where he lives, and rob him right back! And hey, he might have a wife, or maybe some daughters--I bet if you rape them, that'll make other robbers think twice before they mess with you! But maybe that's too much. Maybe you should just burn his house down. After all, he's a criminal, so he doesn't deserve the protection of laws.
But see, the laws don't stop being laws just because somebody breaks them. Nor does the law give you the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner (apart from cases of self defense) just because you feel you're entitled to do whatever you like to somebody who robs you. So go ahead, follow those tracks in the snow to the punk who took your TV and shoot him in the face. Make sure to call the cops when you're done--I'm sure they'll want to thank you for administering a little Texas justice. Or else they'll want to arrest you for murder, one or the other.
Wait, wait, wait. Am I supposed to be a commie, or a Nazi? I'm confused.
Let me clarify my position, since you seem a little confused, too. I'm not suggesting you sleep with your door open, all your valuables stacked for convenient loading, and a few icy beers in the fridge for anyone who wants to stop in and rob you. Of course, you have an obligation to protect yourself from crime. I'm not suggesting you should expect (or desire) the government to be there 100% of the time to protect you. And good for you if you're armed and ready to defend yourself.
My point, very simply, is that there's a difference between using deadly force to save your life, and using deadly force to save a piece of property. I believe most states have self defense laws based on the principle of 'castling'--i.e., if someone breaks into your house, you can assume they're a threat, and respond lethally. I have no problem with that. Fire away.
On the other hand, if you're walking home some night, and you see a guy walking out of your building carrying your stuff, then I think it's insane to suggest that it's okay to shoot him for it. By all means, pull a gun, order him to freeze, call the cops, but your right to your property doesn't outweigh another human's right to life, even if that human is a thieving, degenerate asshole. So spare me the nonsensical historical references; my unwillingness to take a life for the sake of some cash doesn't make me a sheep.
If I draw on a burglar, and tell him to get out, and he makes a move at me, then absolutely, at that point I'd say that the threat he poses to me justifies a violent response. But if grabs my VCR and runs away, I don't have the right to shoot him in the back for 'violating the sanctity of my home.' Seriously, try it some time, and let me know how you enjoy going to prison for assault with a deadly weapon.
I agree with you 100%. It would be foolish to trust that there will always be police or other authorities handy to protect you, and though I don't own a gun myself, I fully support responsible gun ownership for the purpose of self defense. But my post was in response to someone who essentially stated that he feels it's appropriate to use any measure of force he likes in responding to an attack, even if it's just a matter of property theft. And while I'd be willing to kill to protect myself and my family, I think it's insane to suggest that it's okay to shoot somebody for stealing your car, or snatching your wallet. Even if the guy is a criminal scumbag, do I really want to be the guy who shot somebody in the face for some cash, or a piece of property that's probably insured anyway?
I didn't realize that shooting somebody over a TV set was supporting the peacable rule of law and our free society. See, I thought that the reason behind having laws, and police, and courts, and prisons, is so that when somebody violates my rights, he can be caught, judged, and punished fairly, thus eliminating the need for heat of the moment justice. As for upholding the rule of law, isn't that what I do by paying my taxes, supporting government officials who make just laws, and participating (as necessary) in the process of the criminal justice system? I didn't realize I also needed to personally get out there and play Dirty Harry in order to keep the barbarians at bay. But thanks for clarifying things--it's so simple now that I know that my only two choices are sniveling submission to the criminals, and terminating anyone who crosses me with extreme prejudice.
You're right--when I was robbed, it was at gunpoint, and there were many, many sleepless nights spent afterwards reliving that moment of being completely unprotected from the menace posed by another person. I would gladly kill an intruder if I had to in order to protect myself or my family in my home, but that's a last resort situation. To reframe it in terms of my earlier analogy, if a burglar is armed, or if he comes at me when I warn him that I'm armed, then at that point I'd pull the trigger. On the other hand, if he takes off with a TV set, I'm not going to shoot him for it. It's like that debate over the 'castling' principle not too long ago--the fear was that if you eliminate the requirement in the law that the victim attempt to make a run for it before using lethal force, you'd get people blowing away each other rather than letting the cops handle it.
I certainly don't want to sit on my hands while some asshole carries my stereo out the front door, but if you shoot somebody to protect property, as opposed to protecting another person, or your own life, then you've essentially just killed someone for the sake of that piece of property. Do you really think that's a reasonable course of action, regardless of what value you'd place on that particular thief's life? And where do you draw the line? Is it cool to shoot somebody for stealing your plasma TV, but not for stealing your kid's bike? Justice is about restraint: restraint of those who would hurt other people for their own benefit AND restraint of those who would otherwise lash out in righteous anger. And this, of course, is a matter totally separate from defense of one's self.
I've been trying to find the ST for a while, but haven't had any luck. Good stuff, though, especially for a fan of the flick.