This is a classic spurious argument based on a false interdependence of hierarchy. The form: You object to A. B is more objectionable than A. Ergo, you cannot object to A. Seen without the varnish of the content (ala A=pokemon B=inevitable heat death of the universe) the non sequitur is obvious. People using this argument will keep trying to drag focus back to the comparison (B> A, therefore ! A). The beauty is that there is no possible value for A or B that negates the structural flaw in the argument (that objecting to A is in no way contingent on a comparison to an unposited B and positing B does not impose such predicate ex post facto).