Now you're arguing pragmatically rather than logically, though. You're saying "we shouldn't deal with this because it's too hard" not "we shouldn't deal with this because it's not as unjust as other things. Thanks to this I know a little too much for my own good about crime and punishment. I don't know where I'd start. It's definitely a place for pragmatism, no doubt. I think if you focus too intently on the practicalities of the matter, though, you'll be so swamped you won't remember the morality that got you there in the first place. And I, for one, don't think MADD is fighting from a position of strength. I'll bet if you blew hard enough you could knock their house down.
And I, for one, don't think MADD is fighting from a position of strength. I'll bet if you blew hard enough you could knock their house down.
This is the only part I don't agree with. MADD is fighting from the strongest position there is -- bereavement. If they can top any argument you make with "my son is dead" ... it's tough to bring rationality into a discussion like that.
That's not so tough. You can say "you're fighting for vengeance, not for change, or else you'd focus on the hardcore." Then you say "your message has gotten so twisted towards temperance that your founder left twenty years ago." Then you say "how much energy have you spent on rehabilitation vs. punishment?" and then you point out "and what has that shift towards punishment done demographically, anyway?" When you start out with the assertion that one side is not required to be rational, you'd best be doing something other than debate. Pathos only goes so far.