[WernherVonTrapp]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Only to a point. Most laws are based on the concept of protecting ourselves from each other. We make a law against murder not on the general assumption that it's wrong, but to try to protect our own lives. Laws against theft are based on the concept of protecting our own property. Laws against prostitution are based on the idea that someone thinks it's wrong, or "immoral". That is a bad reason to create laws.

Ohhh, I see. Murder and theft aren't wrong, they're just illegal.
Prostitution stands alone in that the laws against it are based solely on someone's perspective of right .vs wrong. The laws against it are not enacted to protect anyone from being viewed as a slave, object or other commodity instead of a human being. They're not enacted because a female (or male) might be underaged or get beaten, harmed by her supervisor if he/she doesn't perform to any standard. They're not enacted to protect prostitutes/johns from theft, being drugged, getting involved with illegal drugs or contracting HIV, AIDS or any other STD. Regulation of the "profession" would certainly eliminate these concerns, well, at least to an "acceptable" degree. If one or two fall through the cracks, no biggie?

You asked me if I wanted my children to be prostitutes. I replied with a specific case, but my point (which you apparently missed entirely) was that there are a lot of things I wouldn't want my children to be, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make laws against them.

No, I don't think I missed your point. I just think I didn't see any comparative relevance between a child that says:
"When I grow up, I want to be the president of the United States."
AND
"When I grow up, I want to be a prostitute."

Exactly. It's something you try to teach your children. It's proper behavior. It's respect for the other person. It's how you try to live your life. It's not something you dictate that others must do through law.

I agree to a point. Laws do exactly that. They dictate to others what they can and cannot do, and in this capacity they can aid in serving as a catalyst to the "proper behavior" you mention.

Good, but again, reasonable assumptions are not the basis of lawmaking.

I never said laws should be enacted via reasonable assumptions. It should've been clear that I was referring strictly to the parent-child relationship regarding a child's aspirations.

I've already agreed with that. A part of my reaction, though, is that you said making it illegal would let your children know that you thought it was wrong. That's a bad reason to make laws.

I also said that I would tell my child that I did not approve and that it would be beneath their true capabilities to sell their body for personal gain. The law (as I stated above) can be an aid in pointing a child in the right direction.

You keep coming back to that. I think we're agreed on that point. That is still not a reason to make something illegal.

I reiterate, I never said that this was/is the reason to make something illegal. It should've been clear that I was speaking about the parent/child relationship regarding a child's aspirations. Nevertheless, it remains a reasonable assumption in the context in which I intended it.

You asked a question in a public forum. That means anyone is free to answer it. You asked specifically "So you think it is OK for children to drink alcohol before the age of 21?", which attempts to put him on a moral hot seat, because if he says "yes" then he's agreeing with you after he said he disagreed, and if he says "no" then he's admitting to a moral basis that's inferior to yours. it was a loaded question from the start.

There you go again, bringing the word "moral" into the fray. You're the one that first injected this word into our discussion. Do you have a predisposition about me? I was clearly illustrating that laws can help aid in keeping children from becoming involved with dangerous activities. I wasn't attempting to put anyone on a perceived "moral hot-seat". Maybe I should've used laws preventing children from buying cigarettes as an example. Would that have been more politically correct?

So do you believe that 21 should be the legal drinking age, because anything younger is "encouraging children"? Are countries (or states) with lower legal drinking ages morally inferior? I understand the point of "discouraging children", but you named a specific age and I question the point of that.

Lets face it, I don't know of anyone who is a child at 20 years old. Did you really miss my meaning? I don't believe you did; you even said "I understand the point of discouraging children." It was an example of laws helping to curb dangerous or unhealthy activities and behavior.

To your actual point: Do we set a legal minimum drinking age because we believe it's morally wrong for children to drink, or because there are serious physical dangers to still-developing bodies and brains that need to be avoided if possible?

There you go again with the "M" word. Why do you keep injecting that? You do have a predisposition about me, don't you? The only time I mentioned it was to show the dictionary's definition, after you threw it into the works.

Oh, you also didn't answer my question. In the very same post you told me we weren't talking about politicians you brought up this whole drinking thing out of the blue. Why keep telling me that I've changed the subject and then do it yourself in the very same breath?

I think my explanation lies in my second entry in this post. Unless, of course, the president is excluded from politics now.