Mr. Milenberg,
Cigarette smoke contains nicotine and some 60 other known carcinogens. It is a known cause of cancer. Nicotine, for example, works by complexing with a gene, I believe it is P53, and blocking its function, which is active in anti-cancer reactions. Nicotine is exactly the kind of compound I was talking about -- it promotes cancer, but does not, itself, initiate cancer. Here is a basis for this position (in a peer-reviewed journal):
======================
Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 2007 Jul;7(4):461-6.
Nicotine, lung and cancer.Translational Research B (Lung Cancer), Department of Integrated Medical Oncology (DOMI), National Cancer Institute, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, Genoa, Italy. alessia.grozio@libero.it
It has been demonstrated that nicotine promotes the growth of solid tumors in vivo, suggesting that might induce the progression of tumors already initiated. While tobacco carcinogens can initiate and promote tumorigenesis, the exposure to nicotine could confer a proliferative advantage to early tumors but there is no evidence that nicotine itself provokes cancer.
======================
To have someone she would have to accept the best match she could find so this may explain her choice in her husband. It does not explain her attribution to him intellectual capacity he did not possess. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll just have to agree to have differences on this. You'll go on trusting in your ability to judge the intimate affairs of others, and I'll continue to be unconvinced that you are such an epistemologically powerful creature.
3)I would say that it is perfectly legitimate to think such a thing, as long as he realized he was not Roark but himself. Then that means that not all acting is bad -- and that Gary Cooper's role as Roark is a particular counter-example to your general rule.
4)I'm not judging Peikoff from afar. I seen him in person at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston and read some of his writing. I have more than enough evidence to make these judgements. Like GW Bush, Peikoff has seemed to me to be a pretty likable guy -- except for the folks behind the scenes pulling his strings. For example, I once heard a podcast interview of Peikoff with, I believe, Yaron Brook, about Objectivist websites. Peikoff's answers were reasonable, but Yaron Brook kept twisting the questions -- trying to lead Peikoff with questions like a shyster lawyer would -- trying to make it come out like Objectivist websites were an evil to be stopped (i.e., that only ARI should get to have an Objectivist website).
It was neat to hear Peikoff expending effort to be careful with his words -- and to be reasonable. It helped me to have some respect for him.
Ed
|
