I don't know if liar's poker is played in Europe, I only meant that I'd read the rules and it seemed straight forward enough to play.bobevenson wrote:I didn't realize they play liar's poker in Europe. Is it an eight-digit number on your currency?John wrote:I found your rules on Ouzo to be a bit confusing but as I believe it's essentially the same as liar's poker I could play it.
In the absence of you actually telling us what Evansonomics is I'll continue to assume this is an elaborate joke and I'll even play along now and again.
Let's leave aside the controversy around when a foetus becomes a child and take the case of a newly born child. Everywhere in the world that allows people to vote sets an age restriction and, whilst there may be debate about what the age limit should be, no country allows a proxy vote for children, let alone new born babies, below the legal voting age.bobevenson wrote:If I can't make you understand that a child at the point of conception should have a vote, you've put me on a dead-end street with no place to go.
So, either your idea has been dismissed as absurd by just about everyone or it's never even been considered and is therefore extremely radical. Whichever one it is you have to accept that it is not a part of mainstream thinking therefore it is unreasonable to believe that someone would accept your idea without a lot of convincing. All you seem to have offered is your opinion without any argument to substantiate it so it appears that either you're being unreasonable, at least in your expectations are, or you fail to realise that other people may hold opinions that you don't.
There are many arguments against giving children the vote, a major one being based around the capacity to make an informed judgement, so what arguments do you have against them?