Quoting you from the other thread Joker hope you don't mind:
Originally Posted by The Joker
I love a good theory if it's based on something in the movie that suggests the possibility. Not one thing you or anyone else has said has done that. That's why you keep coming back to argue. If you had undoubtedly proved your point you wouldn't need to keep repeating it. But you haven't. You're talking complete and utter what ifs.
What I've bolded is exactly what I'm trying to argue though. I'm saying that movie definitely suggests that the Dent Act was a strong, effective piece of legislation which is the only important thing. Two entirely separate and unrelated aspects of it are enough to form the idea that this thing is a huge bill.
You are more than entitled to be unsatisfied with that explanation, just as myself and others are entitled to be content with it. If this movie actually centered around the mob and them being prosecuted like TDK was, it would be an entirely different issue and I'd agree with you that it's under-explained. But TDKR made the genre shift into war/disaster/epic, much like TDK made the genre shift to crime saga from superhero adventure, and I think this shift necessitated a different emphasis when it comes to certain story aspects. I love how genre fluid this trilogy is, that is why I'm fine with just accepting the Dent Act at "face" (heh, get it?
) value, despite me feeling that there is adequate evidence provided in the film to feel assured that it was a hardcore piece of legislation that devastated the mob.
And to be honest, the only reason I personally keep coming back to this discussion is because I enjoy discussing the movie and in the course of thinking about this movie I personally come to love it more. That's been my experience since first seeing the film and reflecting on it. Also because I think it'd be nice to just agree to disagree. I'm still waiting for that to happen without being labeled a "conjecture-theorist" or w/e.