>MrFanning wrote:
>"Please do talk about Kant. Please don't continue to use homosexuality
>as the
>case in point as it has proven to be inflammatory."
>
>Why "homosexuality" would be a forbidden topic is beyond me. Those of us
>who are gay or queer or those of us who are interested in gay studies or
>queer theory come to Foucault, in part, because his work has
>theoretical, ethical and political bearing on our concerns.
I don't think he is saying that we shouldn't talk about homosexuality
I think he is saying that it can be counter-productive to use a
contraversial issue as an example to an argument not directly involved
in it. Perhaps it would be good to address homosexuality in a direct
way.
>Bryan is a bit tedious at times. How many times will we hear the
>disguised tautology: "You can't offer transcendental justifications if
>you do not offer transcendental justifications." It is about time we
>learn more about why we have to have or offer them.
This is what I was trying to get at with my, regrettably tedious,
arguments. I was trying to show their necessity indirectly because no
one was responding in a direct manner.
>It is also tiresome
>to hear someone repeatedly claim that we ought to offer "reasons" and
>then weigh in with: "I am against homosexuality because it is immoral."
>By what standard? Let's hear some reasoning.
Mea culpa. I shouldn't have said that, especially with how unsure I am
of it myself.
>That said, he seems genuinely interested in intellectual exchange and
>his comments have invited both thoughtful and insipid responses -- par
>for the course on a list. There is no good reason to suppress his
>comments or to inhibit the thread.
Thank you.
>Whatever the merits of his comments, treating the subject of queers as
>"inflammatory" <note the insidious connection of "inflammatory" to those
>flaming faggots. Think of the word faggot and its connection to
>burning..> Treating us an embarrassing topic is a sure path to the
>closet. That is an exercise of power that invites resistance.
Again, I'm sorry. I didn't think I was treating homosexuals as
inflammatory, and I certainly don't want to keep anyone in the closet.
If someone is in the closet I can't deliberate upon their opinions. I
am not embarrassed by homosexuality, I have a slight inkling that it is
wrong but I won't bring that up until I have a warranted claim or I
reject the idea myself.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>"Please do talk about Kant. Please don't continue to use homosexuality
>as the
>case in point as it has proven to be inflammatory."
>
>Why "homosexuality" would be a forbidden topic is beyond me. Those of us
>who are gay or queer or those of us who are interested in gay studies or
>queer theory come to Foucault, in part, because his work has
>theoretical, ethical and political bearing on our concerns.
I don't think he is saying that we shouldn't talk about homosexuality
I think he is saying that it can be counter-productive to use a
contraversial issue as an example to an argument not directly involved
in it. Perhaps it would be good to address homosexuality in a direct
way.
>Bryan is a bit tedious at times. How many times will we hear the
>disguised tautology: "You can't offer transcendental justifications if
>you do not offer transcendental justifications." It is about time we
>learn more about why we have to have or offer them.
This is what I was trying to get at with my, regrettably tedious,
arguments. I was trying to show their necessity indirectly because no
one was responding in a direct manner.
>It is also tiresome
>to hear someone repeatedly claim that we ought to offer "reasons" and
>then weigh in with: "I am against homosexuality because it is immoral."
>By what standard? Let's hear some reasoning.
Mea culpa. I shouldn't have said that, especially with how unsure I am
of it myself.
>That said, he seems genuinely interested in intellectual exchange and
>his comments have invited both thoughtful and insipid responses -- par
>for the course on a list. There is no good reason to suppress his
>comments or to inhibit the thread.
Thank you.
>Whatever the merits of his comments, treating the subject of queers as
>"inflammatory" <note the insidious connection of "inflammatory" to those
>flaming faggots. Think of the word faggot and its connection to
>burning..> Treating us an embarrassing topic is a sure path to the
>closet. That is an exercise of power that invites resistance.
Again, I'm sorry. I didn't think I was treating homosexuals as
inflammatory, and I certainly don't want to keep anyone in the closet.
If someone is in the closet I can't deliberate upon their opinions. I
am not embarrassed by homosexuality, I have a slight inkling that it is
wrong but I won't bring that up until I have a warranted claim or I
reject the idea myself.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com