Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PityUpvote t1_j4s909p wrote

Reply to comment by ikzeidegek in Dutch Constitution to be amended to ban discrimination based on sexuality or disability by DutchBlob

It was already illegal, but it's now in the constitution. On one hand it's a mostly symbolic gesture, on the other hand this should theoretically be more difficult to undo for future legislators.

201

censuur12 t1_j4tsds2 wrote

> on the other hand this should theoretically be more difficult to undo for future legislators.

Nope. Not in the slightest. This is an entirely symbolic gesture that changes absolutely nothing but some of the wording, and arguably weakens the overall constitutional ban on discrimination by being specific about certain subjects.

While it might still be nice as a purely symbolic gesture, there really is no practical change to speak of.

2

Leaping-Butterfly t1_j4ul1pg wrote

How to say you don’t understand Dutch constitutional law without saying you don’t understand Dutch constitutional law.

Multiple judges have already said this will help them in certain legal cases as the specification allows them to point at certain edge cases regarding disability and sexuality discrimination (but ESPECIALLY disability discrimination) and tilt them in favour of the disabled party.

There are a lot of examples of for example students that were hard of hearing failing a hearing part of a language exam and not being allowed a sign language or writing alternative and such. And judges have said those students would be better aided with this change to our constitution.

This passed the house and senate in two rounds of voting and in case of the house even hit the mandatory threshold of 2/3rd of parliament. This type of stuff isn’t just “symbolic” these things have ramifications. Just because •you• can’t phantom them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

But please. Keep posting your hunches while lacking a law degree or anything of the kind for the whole world to read. It’s not like the past decades have made the dangers of people bluffing their way through life and not knowing when to shut up abundantly clear.

54

wozzpozz t1_j4uvy3x wrote

Fuck, I loved your last paragraph.

17

Leaping-Butterfly t1_j4uyzfw wrote

Feel free to repeat it where ever you find it fitting.

Let’s make sure that those who bluff are aware that they can’t count on our silence to give their performance-art-piece space.

6

censuur12 t1_j4vfjn0 wrote

It's funny how you've done the exact same thing I have, yet somehow you're entirely right by virtue of... well nothing, really. You're just so right!

So allow me to retort; But please. Keep posting your hunches while lacking a law degree or anything of the kind for the whole world to read. It’s not like the past decades have made the dangers of people bluffing their way through life and not knowing when to shut up abundantly clear.

−4

ipel4 t1_j4vgvkf wrote

So giving examples is the same as not doing so?

3

censuur12 t1_j4vh89d wrote

"Giving examples"? I see a bunch of claims made with nothing behind them. But sure mate, it's way different.

It's rather galling to see someone like you just enter a conversation and start spewing bile instead of treating it with a bit of respect, as though the other person being wrong somehow is something to ridicule rather than, you know, talk about? What on earth is with your attitude?

−4

ipel4 t1_j4whlts wrote

> "Giving examples"? I see a bunch of claims made with nothing behind them.

I said giving examples, not providing sources. You didn't need to explain to me what goving an example is.

You claimed it would provide no difference because you didn't see one even tho clearly at minimum it would make it harder for future governments to remove it which is already a massive accomplishment.

That is completely different from what the person that responded to you did. They had the choice to either verify or not do so. They then gave concrete examples. You had the same choice yet you choose to ignore their examples and make snarky remarks while accusing then of doing the same as you even tho they clearly tried to look for what people actually dealing with the law have to say about this and inform others while you choose to do the opposite.

> It's rather galling to see someone like you just enter a conversation and start spewing bile

That's what a forum is. A place where multiple people exchange thoughts. Not to mnetion it was you who had responded to them with bile in response to their snarkines, yet you somehow try to pin it in me, laughable.

> instead of treating it with a bit of respect, as though the other person being wrong somehow is something to ridicule rather than, you know, talk about?

Respect? You did not show an ounce of respect in the comment I responded to which is exactly what prompted me to reply in the first place.

How ironic that you choose to lecture me about "you know, talk about" things yet like I had stated the reason I wrote my remarks were because you choose to do just the opposite and not acknowledge their reply to you.

And talking about being wrong is stil talking about it. Had you acknowledged it instead of trying to deflect then I would not need to bring up the differences in your replies.

> What on earth is with your attitude?

Simply responding to you to the direction you decided to take the conversation. What's wrong with your attitude? Instead of holding a construcrive conversation you immediately started deflecting and accing of everyonr of what you're doing and then have the gall to accuse everyone else of it.

2

censuur12 t1_j4wkng0 wrote

> I said giving examples, not providing sources.

And I commented on that. I said "nothing behind them" not "unsourced" or anything of the sort. If you believe a claim is synonymous with an example you should probably go check out the definitions.

> it would make it harder for future governments to remove it which is already a massive accomplishment.

How? Another government could just as easily change the constitution back if they wanted to. It also changes nothing even if it wasn't ever removed, it affects nothing. Actual laws changing make a difference here, and while you may argue that doing so is now easier... in reality it doesn't really make it any easier at all, it's still going to be up to the same people casting votes in the chamber. There is no constitutional court in the Netherlands.

> They then gave concrete examples.

Really? You actually believe the things provided amounted to "examples"? 'judges said x' is, at best, an anecdotal claim. An example would be something like "case x or y would be different with this constitutional change" but no such case exists, there are no examples to provide because objectively, this changes nothing. I'd be someone personally affected by any real changes to the rules on this matter, I'm not just talking from other people's perspectives and benefits. This affects me, or it would if it actually changed anything.

> How ironic that you choose to lecture me about "you know, talk about" things yet like I had stated the reason I wrote my remarks were because you choose to do just the opposite and not acknowledge their reply to you.

All you ended up doing was take a cheap, fallacious jab. Come on mate, don't even try this now.

> Simply responding to you to the direction you decided to take the conversation.

See? What's this? Another cheap jab. You didn't even try to have a conversation here, you offered no real argument or case of your own, just a trite accusation of 'you did x' instead of offering much of meaning. And you expected not to be chastised for it? What DID you expect when you wrote that reply? Or was it mere a thought of "haha I sure got him!"?

1

ipel4 t1_j4wwqar wrote

> If you believe a claim is synonymous with an example you should probably go check out the definitions.

"a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule." - ala google

Which perfectly matches how understood it, ie general. If you believe an example is synonymous with evidence you should probably go check out the definitions.

To prove him wrong you could at any time find evidence to counter him.

> How? Another government could just as easily change the constitution back if they wanted to.

Except it's a super majority vote which they either have to get or collaborate with other parties which us much harder than the simple majority they needed before hand. I'm confident getting 65% of people to afree on something is harder than 50%.

> All you ended up doing was take a cheap, fallacious jab. Come on mate, don't even try this now.

That wasn't a jab but pointing out your hypocrisy in lecturing in me doing what you did even tho the reason I did it was to show you why you shouldn't do it.

> See? What's this? Another cheap jab. You didn't even try to have a conversation here, you offered no real argument or case of your own, just a trite accusation of 'you did x' instead of offering much of meaning. And you expected not to be chastised for it? What DID you expect when you wrote that reply? Or was it mere a thought of "haha I sure got him!"?

I literally very verbosely explained to you the difference between both your responses in order to argument my initial take. How else do you expect me to defend my stance of disagreeing with you on your comparison between you two. That's literally whete this entite conversation started from.

1

censuur12 t1_j4wzhpw wrote

> If you believe an example is synonymous with evidence you should probably go check out the definitions. Also To prove him wrong you could at any time find evidence to counter him.

So someone makes a claim without evidence, and I'm obligated to go find some evidence to prove them wrong? Are you OK buddy?

> Except it's a super majority vote which they either have to get or collaborate with other parties which us much harder than the simple majority they needed before hand.

That's not at all relevant to the subject. The difficulty of changing the constitution doesn't change based on what's in the constitution, this change doesn't make it more difficult to change things down the line. In fact, one of the major critiques of this change is that it could actually make it easier to discriminate. If you're specific in one area but not others then that difference can be used as an argument. "It specifies group x here but not in this other rule so this other rule wouldn't apply to group x" is an argument that makes itself, and is damaging to these groups.

> That wasn't a jab but a jab

My guy. Think about what you're actually saying for a second before you write it down.

> I literally very verbosely explained to you the difference between both your responses

I cannot believe you genuinely think so. Are you just pretending to be a fool for a laugh here, or are you genuinely oblivious as to the nature of your own vapid argumentation?

1

Ayzmo t1_j4v3bem wrote

Yeah. You're the kind of person who would have voted the law making equal marriage legal at the federal level because "its already settled."

2

censuur12 t1_j4vf7uq wrote

It's amazing how you somehow divined such intimate knowledge about me from just that. No really it's amazing and not entirely ridiculous...

Get your head out of your ass mate, you're so full of yourself it's disgusting. Not only are you entirely wrong your wild guesses are completely baseless and pointless.

−3