C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties.
------=_NextPart_000_0099_01C08D6B.CB4CD0C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bryan,=20
Here a little quote you might find interesting:
"Questions and answers depend on a game - a game that is at once =
pleasant and difficult - in which each of the two partners take pains to =
use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of =
the dialogue.
The polemicist, on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that =
he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, =
he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle =
a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in the =
search for the truth, but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is =
harmful and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then, =
the game does not consist of recognizing this person as a subject having =
teh right to speak, but of abolishing him, as interlocutor, from any =
possible dialogue; and his final objective will be, not to come as close =
as possible to a difficult truth, but to bring about the triumph of the =
just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The =
polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition =
denied.", [MF in an interview with Paul Rabinow, in _The Foucault =
Reader_, Rabinow (ed.), p. 382]
Note that I did not "imbue myself with the authority to create a bipolar =
system between acceptance and homophobia", as you seem to claim. But it =
would be helpful if you were prepared to see the difference between =
somebody who manifests a will to knowledge in his deployment of a =
normative network of knowledge, truth and power on sexuality with the =
aim to exclude what he perceives to be deviant behaviour, and on the =
other hand a critique which does not use these means of exclusion.=20
Yves
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Bryan C=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Is Juan Cruz a Homosexual himself? - homophobia
>Bryan,
>
>Ok, here's an argument: Juan says he "hates homosexuals". What is he=20
>actually saying? He hates (dislikes, is repelled by, despises) all=20
>individuals within a category he labels "homosexuals".
But everyone else is doing the same thing to him! They hate
anyone who falls into the category of "homophobic".
>There are two major problems here.
>1. The category: Who is a homosexual? Somebody who has sexual =
relations=20
>with people from the same sex? or the same gender? what is a sexual=20
>relation? are we talking about attraction or does the individual need =
to=20
>have sexual intercourse in order to be a member of Juan's category? =
if so,=20
>what kind of sexual intercourse and to what extent? My point is that =
we are=20
>all constituted and constitute ourselves within a sexual field =
(forgive the=20
>spacial analogy) which is not bipolar and even if it were bipolar, =
who=20
>would decide on the cutoff point. But Juan feels authorised - or =
rather=20
>authorises himself - to unilaterally equalise the irreductible =
difference=20
>and singularity to a point where he feels confident to create the =
category=20
>of "homosexuals". This is a fairly violent operation by which he =
reduces=20
>difference to sameness. Juan creates a subjectivity which is based on =
a=20
>sexual behaviour, even worse, Juan's own
But the same is true for his attackers. They imbue themselves
with the authority to create a bipolar system between acceptance
and homophobia. They then proceed to hate, exclude, and
humiliate anyone who calls homosexuality wrong. Just as Juan
does with homosexuals.
>2. Hatred: Juan "hates". Juan's hatred denies every member of his =
category=20
>his respect for their choice (or constitution). He negates their=20
>subjectivity which he himself created. Declaring himself to be the=20
>universal judge on categories, he denies every member of his category =
the=20
>very subjectivity he performatively sollicits for himself. But hatred =
is=20
>more than that, it stems from an aggression Juan harbours against =
that=20
>which is different from himself, which is different and he turns into =
>radical otherness.
But they deny him the right to constitute himself as a homophob.
>Now of course, you're going to say that I haven't provided you with =
an=20
>argument of why it is WRONG. Well, there is simply no theoretically =
sound=20
>deduction that would sustain the wrongness of Juan's aggression. Of =
course=20
>one could call on norms and argue that Juan is not behaving in=20
>correspondance with our contemporary social norms, but then you would =
>rightly ask whether in this case it would have been "right" to be a =
Nazi in=20
>Germany between 1933 and 1945. The question here, again, is not about =
RIGHT=20
>or WRONG in an absolute sense, nor of some kind of validity, but one =
of a=20
>personal ethics. The only thing we can do is showing the intolerance =
and=20
>absurdity in Juan's judgement and this is exactly the function of =
critique.
Then let us apply the same standard to those who attack
homophobia. It seems obvious that they have parrallel hatreds.
The anti-racist is as bad as the racist. The ant-homophob as
bad as the homophob.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------=_NextPart_000_0099_01C08D6B.CB4CD0C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bryan, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Here a little quote you might find=20
interesting:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Questions and answers depend on a game =
- a game=20
that is at once pleasant and difficult - in which each of the two =
partners take=20
pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted =
form of=20
the dialogue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The polemicist, on the other hand, =
proceeds encased=20
in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to =
question. On=20
principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making =
that=20
struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in =
the=20
search for the truth, but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is =
harmful=20
and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then, the game =
does not=20
consist of recognizing this person as a subject having teh right to =
speak, but=20
of abolishing him, as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his =
final=20
objective will be, not to come as close as possible to a difficult =
truth, but to=20
bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly =
upholding from=20
the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary =
is by=20
definition denied.", [MF in an interview with Paul Rabinow, in _The =
Foucault=20
Reader_, Rabinow (ed.), p. 382]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Note that I did not "imbue myself with =
the=20
authority to create a bipolar system between acceptance and homophobia", =
as you=20
seem to claim. But it would be helpful if you were prepared =
to see=20
the difference between somebody who manifests a will to knowledge in his =
deployment of a normative network of knowledge, truth and =
power on=20
sexuality with the aim to exclude what he perceives to be deviant =
behaviour, and=20
on the other hand a critique which does not use these means of =
exclusion.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Yves</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dkirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx";>Bryan C</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>foucault@lists.villag=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, February 02, 2001 =
8:24=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Is Juan Cruz a =
Homosexual=20
himself? - homophobia</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>>Bryan,<BR>><BR>>Ok,=20
here's an argument: Juan says he "hates homosexuals". What is he=20
<BR>>actually saying? He hates (dislikes, is repelled by, despises) =
all=20
<BR>>individuals within a category he labels =
"homosexuals".<BR><BR>But=20
everyone else is doing the same thing to him! They =
hate<BR>anyone who=20
falls into the category of "homophobic".<BR><BR>>There are two =
major=20
problems here.<BR><BR>>1. The category: Who is a homosexual? =
Somebody who=20
has sexual relations <BR>>with people from the same sex? or the =
same=20
gender? what is a sexual <BR>>relation? are we talking about =
attraction or=20
does the individual need to <BR>>have sexual intercourse in order =
to be a=20
member of Juan's category? if so, <BR>>what kind of sexual =
intercourse and=20
to what extent? My point is that we are <BR>>all constituted and =
constitute=20
ourselves within a sexual field (forgive the <BR>>spacial analogy) =
which is=20
not bipolar and even if it were bipolar, who <BR>>would decide on =
the=20
cutoff point. But Juan feels authorised - or rather <BR>>authorises =
himself=20
- to unilaterally equalise the irreductible difference <BR>>and =
singularity=20
to a point where he feels confident to create the category <BR>>of=20
"homosexuals". This is a fairly violent operation by which he reduces=20
<BR>>difference to sameness. Juan creates a subjectivity which is =
based on=20
a <BR>>sexual behaviour, even worse, Juan's own<BR><BR>But the same =
is true=20
for his attackers. They imbue themselves<BR>with the authority =
to create=20
a bipolar system between acceptance<BR>and homophobia. They then =
proceed=20
to hate, exclude, and<BR>humiliate anyone who calls homosexuality =
wrong. =20
Just as Juan<BR>does with homosexuals.<BR><BR>>2. Hatred: Juan =
"hates".=20
Juan's hatred denies every member of his category <BR>>his respect =
for=20
their choice (or constitution). He negates their <BR>>subjectivity =
which he=20
himself created. Declaring himself to be the <BR>>universal judge =
on=20
categories, he denies every member of his category the <BR>>very=20
subjectivity he performatively sollicits for himself. But hatred is=20
<BR>>more than that, it stems from an aggression Juan harbours =
against that=20
<BR>>which is different from himself, which is different and he =
turns into=20
<BR>>radical otherness.<BR><BR>But they deny him the right to =
constitute=20
himself as a homophob.<BR><BR>>Now of course, you're going to say =
that I=20
haven't provided you with an <BR>>argument of why it is WRONG. =
Well, there=20
is simply no theoretically sound <BR>>deduction that would sustain =
the=20
wrongness of Juan's aggression. Of course <BR>>one could call on =
norms and=20
argue that Juan is not behaving in <BR>>correspondance with our=20
contemporary social norms, but then you would <BR>>rightly ask =
whether in=20
this case it would have been "right" to be a Nazi in <BR>>Germany =
between=20
1933 and 1945. The question here, again, is not about RIGHT <BR>>or =
WRONG=20
in an absolute sense, nor of some kind of validity, but one of a=20
<BR>>personal ethics. The only thing we can do is showing the =
intolerance=20
and <BR>>absurdity in Juan's judgement and this is exactly the =
function of=20
critique.<BR><BR>Then let us apply the same standard to those who=20
attack<BR>homophobia. It seems obvious that they have parrallel=20
hatreds.<BR>The anti-racist is as bad as the racist. The =
ant-homophob=20
as<BR>bad as the=20
=
homophob.<BR>____________________________________________________________=
_____<BR>Get=20
your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <A=20
=
href=3D"http://explorer.msn.com";>http://explorer.msn.com</A><BR></BLOCKQU=
OTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0099_01C08D6B.CB4CD0C0--
------=_NextPart_000_0099_01C08D6B.CB4CD0C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bryan,=20
Here a little quote you might find interesting:
"Questions and answers depend on a game - a game that is at once =
pleasant and difficult - in which each of the two partners take pains to =
use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of =
the dialogue.
The polemicist, on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that =
he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, =
he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle =
a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in the =
search for the truth, but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is =
harmful and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then, =
the game does not consist of recognizing this person as a subject having =
teh right to speak, but of abolishing him, as interlocutor, from any =
possible dialogue; and his final objective will be, not to come as close =
as possible to a difficult truth, but to bring about the triumph of the =
just cause he has been manifestly upholding from the beginning. The =
polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary is by definition =
denied.", [MF in an interview with Paul Rabinow, in _The Foucault =
Reader_, Rabinow (ed.), p. 382]
Note that I did not "imbue myself with the authority to create a bipolar =
system between acceptance and homophobia", as you seem to claim. But it =
would be helpful if you were prepared to see the difference between =
somebody who manifests a will to knowledge in his deployment of a =
normative network of knowledge, truth and power on sexuality with the =
aim to exclude what he perceives to be deviant behaviour, and on the =
other hand a critique which does not use these means of exclusion.=20
Yves
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Bryan C=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: Is Juan Cruz a Homosexual himself? - homophobia
>Bryan,
>
>Ok, here's an argument: Juan says he "hates homosexuals". What is he=20
>actually saying? He hates (dislikes, is repelled by, despises) all=20
>individuals within a category he labels "homosexuals".
But everyone else is doing the same thing to him! They hate
anyone who falls into the category of "homophobic".
>There are two major problems here.
>1. The category: Who is a homosexual? Somebody who has sexual =
relations=20
>with people from the same sex? or the same gender? what is a sexual=20
>relation? are we talking about attraction or does the individual need =
to=20
>have sexual intercourse in order to be a member of Juan's category? =
if so,=20
>what kind of sexual intercourse and to what extent? My point is that =
we are=20
>all constituted and constitute ourselves within a sexual field =
(forgive the=20
>spacial analogy) which is not bipolar and even if it were bipolar, =
who=20
>would decide on the cutoff point. But Juan feels authorised - or =
rather=20
>authorises himself - to unilaterally equalise the irreductible =
difference=20
>and singularity to a point where he feels confident to create the =
category=20
>of "homosexuals". This is a fairly violent operation by which he =
reduces=20
>difference to sameness. Juan creates a subjectivity which is based on =
a=20
>sexual behaviour, even worse, Juan's own
But the same is true for his attackers. They imbue themselves
with the authority to create a bipolar system between acceptance
and homophobia. They then proceed to hate, exclude, and
humiliate anyone who calls homosexuality wrong. Just as Juan
does with homosexuals.
>2. Hatred: Juan "hates". Juan's hatred denies every member of his =
category=20
>his respect for their choice (or constitution). He negates their=20
>subjectivity which he himself created. Declaring himself to be the=20
>universal judge on categories, he denies every member of his category =
the=20
>very subjectivity he performatively sollicits for himself. But hatred =
is=20
>more than that, it stems from an aggression Juan harbours against =
that=20
>which is different from himself, which is different and he turns into =
>radical otherness.
But they deny him the right to constitute himself as a homophob.
>Now of course, you're going to say that I haven't provided you with =
an=20
>argument of why it is WRONG. Well, there is simply no theoretically =
sound=20
>deduction that would sustain the wrongness of Juan's aggression. Of =
course=20
>one could call on norms and argue that Juan is not behaving in=20
>correspondance with our contemporary social norms, but then you would =
>rightly ask whether in this case it would have been "right" to be a =
Nazi in=20
>Germany between 1933 and 1945. The question here, again, is not about =
RIGHT=20
>or WRONG in an absolute sense, nor of some kind of validity, but one =
of a=20
>personal ethics. The only thing we can do is showing the intolerance =
and=20
>absurdity in Juan's judgement and this is exactly the function of =
critique.
Then let us apply the same standard to those who attack
homophobia. It seems obvious that they have parrallel hatreds.
The anti-racist is as bad as the racist. The ant-homophob as
bad as the homophob.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------=_NextPart_000_0099_01C08D6B.CB4CD0C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bryan, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Here a little quote you might find=20
interesting:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Questions and answers depend on a game =
- a game=20
that is at once pleasant and difficult - in which each of the two =
partners take=20
pains to use only the rights given him by the other and by the accepted =
form of=20
the dialogue.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The polemicist, on the other hand, =
proceeds encased=20
in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to =
question. On=20
principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making =
that=20
struggle a just undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in =
the=20
search for the truth, but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is =
harmful=20
and whose very existence constitutes a threat. For him, then, the game =
does not=20
consist of recognizing this person as a subject having teh right to =
speak, but=20
of abolishing him, as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his =
final=20
objective will be, not to come as close as possible to a difficult =
truth, but to=20
bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly =
upholding from=20
the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his adversary =
is by=20
definition denied.", [MF in an interview with Paul Rabinow, in _The =
Foucault=20
Reader_, Rabinow (ed.), p. 382]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Note that I did not "imbue myself with =
the=20
authority to create a bipolar system between acceptance and homophobia", =
as you=20
seem to claim. But it would be helpful if you were prepared =
to see=20
the difference between somebody who manifests a will to knowledge in his =
deployment of a normative network of knowledge, truth and =
power on=20
sexuality with the aim to exclude what he perceives to be deviant =
behaviour, and=20
on the other hand a critique which does not use these means of =
exclusion.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Yves</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dkirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx";>Bryan C</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>foucault@lists.villag=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, February 02, 2001 =
8:24=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Is Juan Cruz a =
Homosexual=20
himself? - homophobia</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>>Bryan,<BR>><BR>>Ok,=20
here's an argument: Juan says he "hates homosexuals". What is he=20
<BR>>actually saying? He hates (dislikes, is repelled by, despises) =
all=20
<BR>>individuals within a category he labels =
"homosexuals".<BR><BR>But=20
everyone else is doing the same thing to him! They =
hate<BR>anyone who=20
falls into the category of "homophobic".<BR><BR>>There are two =
major=20
problems here.<BR><BR>>1. The category: Who is a homosexual? =
Somebody who=20
has sexual relations <BR>>with people from the same sex? or the =
same=20
gender? what is a sexual <BR>>relation? are we talking about =
attraction or=20
does the individual need to <BR>>have sexual intercourse in order =
to be a=20
member of Juan's category? if so, <BR>>what kind of sexual =
intercourse and=20
to what extent? My point is that we are <BR>>all constituted and =
constitute=20
ourselves within a sexual field (forgive the <BR>>spacial analogy) =
which is=20
not bipolar and even if it were bipolar, who <BR>>would decide on =
the=20
cutoff point. But Juan feels authorised - or rather <BR>>authorises =
himself=20
- to unilaterally equalise the irreductible difference <BR>>and =
singularity=20
to a point where he feels confident to create the category <BR>>of=20
"homosexuals". This is a fairly violent operation by which he reduces=20
<BR>>difference to sameness. Juan creates a subjectivity which is =
based on=20
a <BR>>sexual behaviour, even worse, Juan's own<BR><BR>But the same =
is true=20
for his attackers. They imbue themselves<BR>with the authority =
to create=20
a bipolar system between acceptance<BR>and homophobia. They then =
proceed=20
to hate, exclude, and<BR>humiliate anyone who calls homosexuality =
wrong. =20
Just as Juan<BR>does with homosexuals.<BR><BR>>2. Hatred: Juan =
"hates".=20
Juan's hatred denies every member of his category <BR>>his respect =
for=20
their choice (or constitution). He negates their <BR>>subjectivity =
which he=20
himself created. Declaring himself to be the <BR>>universal judge =
on=20
categories, he denies every member of his category the <BR>>very=20
subjectivity he performatively sollicits for himself. But hatred is=20
<BR>>more than that, it stems from an aggression Juan harbours =
against that=20
<BR>>which is different from himself, which is different and he =
turns into=20
<BR>>radical otherness.<BR><BR>But they deny him the right to =
constitute=20
himself as a homophob.<BR><BR>>Now of course, you're going to say =
that I=20
haven't provided you with an <BR>>argument of why it is WRONG. =
Well, there=20
is simply no theoretically sound <BR>>deduction that would sustain =
the=20
wrongness of Juan's aggression. Of course <BR>>one could call on =
norms and=20
argue that Juan is not behaving in <BR>>correspondance with our=20
contemporary social norms, but then you would <BR>>rightly ask =
whether in=20
this case it would have been "right" to be a Nazi in <BR>>Germany =
between=20
1933 and 1945. The question here, again, is not about RIGHT <BR>>or =
WRONG=20
in an absolute sense, nor of some kind of validity, but one of a=20
<BR>>personal ethics. The only thing we can do is showing the =
intolerance=20
and <BR>>absurdity in Juan's judgement and this is exactly the =
function of=20
critique.<BR><BR>Then let us apply the same standard to those who=20
attack<BR>homophobia. It seems obvious that they have parrallel=20
hatreds.<BR>The anti-racist is as bad as the racist. The =
ant-homophob=20
as<BR>bad as the=20
=
homophob.<BR>____________________________________________________________=
_____<BR>Get=20
your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <A=20
=
href=3D"http://explorer.msn.com";>http://explorer.msn.com</A><BR></BLOCKQU=
OTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0099_01C08D6B.CB4CD0C0--