Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
I think this thread proves otherwise. A thread about the risks of drinking and driving has quickly jumped into "the problem is over exaggerated" and "the group most known for fighting drinking and driving are a corrupt organization willing to manipulate data to overstate the problem". I think going after MADD DOES weaken the battle against drinking and driving.
I do believe that tar and feathering the organization that most people associate with fighting drunk driving would hurt the message. Or at least obfuscate the message. It definitely changes the subject from the message to the messenger.
|
Well if that's how you've decided to read this thread there's not much I can do about it, but absolutely nowhere does anyone even insinuate that the problem of drunk driving is over-exaggerated. What Polak pointed out (or attempted to) was that the statistics utilized aren't a true reflection of what they are being presented as. There's nothing wrong with calling for accountability and honesty, regardless of the cause. Calling for MADD to be accountable, both through the usage of clear and honest statistics and transparency regarding their agenda, is completely legitimate. If doing that harms the effort against drunk driving perhaps you should be asking questions of MADD.