The problem with "No, because..." is that it leaves the question open, especially when the person saying "no" is trying to be especially polite. Suppose the father said, "No, I wouldn't be comfortable with that." Well, when he's not there, he can't be uncomfortable, so it's ok. Suppose he said, "No, it's illegal." Well, smoking is legal at a younger age, so that must be ok. Speeding is illegal so when the son sees the father speeding, he'll have to conclude that his father is being unfair since he breaks the law but expects his son to follow it.

"No" with a condition leaves the expectation that when the conditioned is changed, the answer will also change. "No" by itself is straightforward and can't lead to false expectations.

True. The guy who brought his kids up with a proper understanding of rhetoric definitely did a better educational job.

The kids of Dr. No, however, will grow up being people who can't express themselves, and inevitably provoke conflict by being obstinate and seeing themselves mostly in the right because of their authority.

They will not value reason.

I might be inclined to think that someone who can't give a straight answer is going to have trouble expressing himself.

Read to the end of the article, context matters.

If I would his kid, I wouldn't ask the next time.

Чем унижаться и просить, лучше спиздить и молчать. Especially when you've got a parent who really believes in drinking age. Duh, I have a bridge to sell.