> 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?

> 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!"?

> Given your poor imagination on how this matters makes me believe it does not matter what i tell you either way.

Yea wow, "I imagine having a normal conversation is pointless so I won't even try"? Why even post at all if you actually believe that? Spare me your pathetic excuses and stop wasting my time then.

"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?

But it's not. It might influence change later down the line, but by itself it's not going to affect much. Though if you know something I don't feel free to point out some specific change this is going to have by itself, I'd love to know.

And the point was, from the very start, that this was already set in our constitution. Re-wording the constitution like this changes nothing until actual laws are changed, which might happen based on this change, but those legal changes could have happened just as much without this amending of the constitution.

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.

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.

> This will for sure help if you sue for discrimination though.

No. Not in the slightest. The Judge literally cannot even take this into consideration. Only specific laws can be tested, not the constitution.

> Also Laws are tested vs the constitution in the 1st chamber of parlement. And often used in debates in the 2nd chamber

Correct. But this change in wording in no way changes the actual constitution or the laws derived from it. These matters were already as protected as they are going to get in that regard. Changing the wording here means nothing.

Nope. Sadly it does not. At all. A 'Constritution' is not a universal concept. De Nederlandse Grondwet is in no way the same type of thing as say the US constitution. One big practical difference is that Judges do not test laws based on the constitution at all (they're not even allowed to) so this makes no difference for the laws either.

> 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.