Brexit

[Bofferbrauer2]

Ka-pi96 said:

Bofferbrauer2 said:

b) The problem here is that it's too black-or-white, it lacks both nuance and exact definition.

We got the perfect example at school as to why this is very important: First we got a text about Euthanasia (which was a big question in Luxembourg at the time), and got if we would allow to use euthanasia like in the text "on people who according to medical consensus are terminally ill with no hope on improvement". Most of the class said yes at the time, then the teacher dropped the atomic bombshell: The text in question was actually the Euthanasia Law of Nazi Germany, and due to lack of nuance and definition they did use it to kill millions for reasons like, Alzheimer, Tourette syndrome, or simply missing a limb, and explained that technically at the time everybody who had to wear glasses would be eligible (nowadays there's surgery that can heal that) under that law.

I mean, there's a pretty obvious issue with that quote in that it doesn't mention anything about consent. That should have been a pretty big red flag before people said yes to using it like that.

But aside from that, how is people needing to wear glasses a terminal illness?

I don't remember the exact quote anymore, so terminal illness is probably the wrong translation, but I remember my teacher explaining that anyone who needed glasses could also fall under that law