On 4/17/98 3:59pm, dave.roberts@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>At 02:00 PM 4/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>This is in reference to Dave's homophobic, idiotic statement that
>>Foucault hung out in bathouses infecting people. Precisely, what
>>fucking evidence do you have? Bill D.
>
>My goodness. I thought this was common knowledge. As
>I recall, this was from a magazine interview/article at
>the time. I will try to find a reference for you.
>
>However, my statement was not based on "homophobia"
>or a fear of sameness. In my pre-Nietzschean ethical
>system it is questionable to have unprotected sex when
>you have a fatal communicable disease--irregardless of
>your sexual orientation.
>
No, the last thing this claim is, is "common knowledge." Even Miller's
pathologizing biography of Foucault--which treats the issue in some
detail--came to the conclusion that Foucault NEVER knowingly had
unprotected sex with the idea of spreading the HIV virus. There is no
evidence (and Foucaul't three biographers amass a wealth of evidence on
his life) whatsoever that Foucault knew he was infected with HIV while he
was frequenting the bath houses in San Francisco (remember, the very
early 80's was a time when VERY little was known about HIV/AIDS). This
topic has been discussed at length in a number of different outlets, and
some would like to argue that Foucault must have had some idea that he
was sick, but there is no evidence that he intentionally harmed anyone.
To claim such a thing and then state that it was "common knowledge"
seems, at the least, irresponsible, to me. I don't know about much about
your "pre-Nietzschean ethical system," but I question the idea of
slandering someone based on something that might have been said at the
time.
Sam
>At 02:00 PM 4/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>This is in reference to Dave's homophobic, idiotic statement that
>>Foucault hung out in bathouses infecting people. Precisely, what
>>fucking evidence do you have? Bill D.
>
>My goodness. I thought this was common knowledge. As
>I recall, this was from a magazine interview/article at
>the time. I will try to find a reference for you.
>
>However, my statement was not based on "homophobia"
>or a fear of sameness. In my pre-Nietzschean ethical
>system it is questionable to have unprotected sex when
>you have a fatal communicable disease--irregardless of
>your sexual orientation.
>
No, the last thing this claim is, is "common knowledge." Even Miller's
pathologizing biography of Foucault--which treats the issue in some
detail--came to the conclusion that Foucault NEVER knowingly had
unprotected sex with the idea of spreading the HIV virus. There is no
evidence (and Foucaul't three biographers amass a wealth of evidence on
his life) whatsoever that Foucault knew he was infected with HIV while he
was frequenting the bath houses in San Francisco (remember, the very
early 80's was a time when VERY little was known about HIV/AIDS). This
topic has been discussed at length in a number of different outlets, and
some would like to argue that Foucault must have had some idea that he
was sick, but there is no evidence that he intentionally harmed anyone.
To claim such a thing and then state that it was "common knowledge"
seems, at the least, irresponsible, to me. I don't know about much about
your "pre-Nietzschean ethical system," but I question the idea of
slandering someone based on something that might have been said at the
time.
Sam