censuur12 t1_j4wkng0 wrote
Reply to comment by ipel4 in Dutch Constitution to be amended to ban discrimination based on sexuality or disability by DutchBlob
> 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!"?
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.
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?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments