"You don't gain any ground by pointing out how long or how short the other user's account has been around." You misjudge me. That was a sincere comment. "They

"You don't gain any ground by pointing out how long or how short the other user's account has been around." You misjudge me. That was a sincere comment. "They don't have to agree with every dictate to agree with some of the conclusions of the body." Agreed; but then why bring the UN's decrees up at all? It'd be better to impartially argue why it is immoral instead of making an appeal to an authority that they themselves sometimes disagree with, no? "[Y]ou probably have to say more to justify a lower-approval response as the right answer". I picked it because it is verifiably neutral. My supposition is that the former attack on the account's partiality fails because the UN is neither always correct (as you agreed), and is most certainly not itself impartial (as I hope you would agree). Mentioning that a biased party calls something illegal and that the truth is unpopular is a tangential response at best. What specific facts are being disputed?