I think you mis-understand me. My feeling aren't hurt at all. I fully recognize the fact that few people appreciate or can even accept the perversions I enjoy.

You are obviously trying to shift the discussion away from the point I was trying to make, i.e., that you are a hypocrite. I don't take issue with your right to criticize the likes and dislikes of others. I merely take issue with your assertion that you are "open-minded and accepting." Clearly, you are not. It's a shame, because you actually make some very interesting points about de-construction and moral relativity - issues of serious import and subject of considerable dialogue not just in these circles but in our society in general. The sad consequence of your hypocisy, however, is that the validity of your arguments is diminished and your own ignorance and stupidity are put in stark relief.

It is true that moral and ethical lines may and should be drawn. The point raised by moral relativists, however, is that those lines should be drawn with great care to reflect a broad consensus. Thus, killing and rape are generally illegal, because it is universally recognized that these acts infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others to their great detriment. (Even these rules are not absolute, e.g., self-defense is a perfectly legal form of killing).

The danger of being so vigorously hostile to ideas you personally dislike versus those universally recognized as distasteful is that those holding those ideas risk being marginalized. For example, you write a little book about how rotten the Jews are and the next thing you know, you've got the 3rd Reich. I know it's a "slippery slope" argument and we "free Americans" never seem to fear the erosion of our rights, but it's important to recognize that the reason our rights have remained sacrosanct is because the "pc" types, like the ACLU, have been extremely vigilant.