Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 16th Nov 2012 07:43 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542938
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[14]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by WereCatf on Sun 18th Nov 2012 22:24
in reply to "RE[13]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Uh, did you even read that thing yourself? If the law said women aren't allowed to vote then there would indeed be no legal redress and it would not be an injury, just as the dictionary link you gave says.
This one says the same thing.
And here, too.
I don't get your point.
RE[15]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda
by galvanash on Sun 18th Nov 2012 22:45
in reply to "RE[14]: Comment by Thom_Holwerda"
Uh, did you even read that thing yourself? If the law said women aren't allowed to vote then there would indeed be no legal redress and it would not be an injury, just as the dictionary link you gave says.
Dont be so dense. The point of the women's suffrage movement was to establish the laws allowing legal redress. Just because the injury comes before the law doesn't change anything - denying a woman to vote is causing injury - the proof of that is laws were established to disallow the practice.
Would you say that slavery caused injury only after it was outlawed? Your either just arguing for the sake or arguing are simply don't understand what you are talking about.





Member since:
2006-01-25
Please read number 3 below...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/injury
or 1b below...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/injury
or any legal dictionary...
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/injury/