What I'm saying is that while I don't necessarily agree with the full extent of the policy, I recognize that reasonable people can disagree with it as a whole, and that enforcing it is the best way to demonstrate what's wrong with the policy, rather than demonstrating what's wrong with the enforcement (the effect of selective enforcement).

It is a tempting premise: if something is wrong, taking it to its full extent will demonstrate just how wrong it is, causing everyone to unite in striking it down. Justice wins in the end!

It is too optimistic to think that being right is enough to effect change. I think that framing the discussion this way will allow people who want to keep the status quo to use survivorship as a basis for legitimacy. When idyllic justice fails and the change doesn't happen, that becomes proof that the status quo was correct all along.