zlacker

I've already said – it makes the document harder to follow and harder to understand. I don't see how that's a mere triviality. The ability of citizens to understand the law is a valuable thing, and especially when dealing with the most foundational law of a legal system, its constitution.

AFAIK, this circumstance has no significant effects of this kind. Still, the burden of proof is on you, and all you've provided is an opinion.

Principles and their application matter, but form matters too.

Woo.

It's better, in my opinion, that people know the messy history and can see it in the law. This way, they can know the nuanced history of how we all got to the present day. Otherwise, dishonest "activists" might try to sell young people some B-movie version of history.

>>stcred+(OP)
> all you've provided is an opinion

Which is all you've done too.

>>skissa+4
> > all you've provided is an opinion

> Which is all you've done too.

You've fallen into the trap. You just admitted that your "effect" is not any kind of proof, just an opinion. On the other hand, my opinion has no material effect on my position that your points are trivial, woo, and the bandying about of opinion. That was kind of the point, of my using the word opinion.

Thanks for playing.

>>stcred+91
That's all anybody on this site has, opinions. "Proof"? This isn't a trial in a court of law, or a mathematics paper.

If you aren't interested in opinions why do you bother? That's all this site has. Yours, mine, those of however many other users there are here.