The truth unvarnished
DumbJon has read the vitriolic comments to my post below on the stupidity of one HIV-infected porn star and is sceptical.
[When the loony left liberals] start taking out an onion it usually implies that they've got something to hide. So it is in this case. We can smile at poor, dumb, Lara's statement, yet what is her statement but a logical conclusion drawn from L3-influenced health education efforts? To suggest to the L3 that STDs may make promiscuity a bad idea is to commit the worst form of heresy. However bad the AIDS epidemic gets, the L3 will continue to argue for any measure other than cutting down on shagging, justifying their position by talking up the effectiveness of alternative counter-measures far beyond any rational judgement of their worth - condoms, for example, dramatically cut down the risk, but they surely don't eliminate it. Against this background, can we really blame Lara for buying into the idea that, with a few, simple, measures, she could keep buying tickets without winning the lottery? And can we really not blame those supposed public-health experts who helped put that thought in her head, and thereby condemned her to death?
Well, exactly. The offence was not to laugh at her catching HIV - I clearly didn't. My crime was to suggest she is responsible for her own actions, and so for the predicament in which they have placed her. I have noted elsewhere that liberal outrage seems exactly proportionate to the demonstrable truth of the opposing case, but I certainly didn't learn that lesson. So help me, God: I said sexually-transmitted diseases are sexually-transmitted.
