Although sometimes this argument can be used equally incorrectly for a great cause: “If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we enforce vice laws/fix the deficit/[fill in the blank]?”

Also, compare the similar but far more legitimate line of Talmudic logic, the kal v’chomer. For example, the Talmud states:

“Just as one whose animal damages by grazing, which is unintentional, must pay damages [in Jewish law], so too, when an animal damages by goring, which ic intentional, one should be obligated to pay damages.”– Babba Kama 4a

So you see that this logical technique can be used effectively sometimes.

P.S. It happens to be that the Talmud refutes this line of logic:

“[One cannot derive the law that the owner of an animal that gores is liable to pay]…one would think that this is comparable to the case of a slave…who is upset at his master and torches his master’s neighbor’s haystack…thereby causing him to be liable to pay one hundredmaneh each day…[and since the slave did this with intent, and he is the master's property, and the master is not liable to pay, so too one would think that an animal, which is also one's property, when damaging with intent, does not incur damages upon the master.]