(August 3, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Dotard Wrote: Yes it did.
No it doesn't. Of course in your warped sexist view anything a woman does or wears is probably considered consent, the woman's verbal will be damned. She said no. Therefore, no consent. This is simple, it's plain English.
(August 3, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Dotard Wrote: Her image was not used illegally. Didn't the jury already decide that? If the jury said, and the judge apparently agreed, GGW did not do anything illegal, then they didn't do anything illegal.
NOW End of Story.
So because OJ Simpson was declared innocent by a jury, he never committed the crime? Come on.
Your making an appeal to law, stating that just because the jury ruled that way that it makes them right. Supreme example of a logical fallacy.
(August 3, 2010 at 9:01 pm)Dotard Wrote: Right. She didn't win. Why are you still arguing and accusing folks of victim blaming when the courts have decided there was no "victim".
I call it as I see it. A victim doesn't need the courts to declare it for it to be so. Another logical fallacy.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :odcast:: Boston Atheists Report
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :odcast:: Boston Atheists Report