>I think you miss the thrust of Kirk's claims. Kirk
>isn't claiming that he himself adheres to these
>beliefs, but that such a stance seems to follow from
>the claim that there is no normativity in Foucault.
>In other words, it is a transcendental or critical
>question about what entitles us to make claims of
>either sort. If normativity is simply an effect of
>power, a social construction, then there seems to be
>no criteria for choosing between homophobia or
>non-homophobia, racism and anti-racism. But
>Foucualtians make claims all the time that we should
>choose between these alternatives. So on what grounds
>are they entitled to make claims? What entitles us to
>UNIVERSALLY claim that homophobia and racism are
>wrong? This is a problem to be solved rather than
>evaded and dismissed.
>Department of Philosophy
>Loyola University of Chicago
PRECISELY! Just as my last mail said, hatred is universally wrong, to
hate a homophobe is as bad as hating anyone else. This doesn't mean
I embrace homophobia, because it entails hate. Rather I would reason
with a homophobe instead simply hating him which both is immoral and
counter productive, only entrenching his mindset.
PS I never did thank Yves for bringing up a real argument. Thank you.
It is much more productive than name calling.
PPS Am I spelling homophobe right?
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com