Relative privation is fallacious because the logical existence of a bad problem isn’t negated by the existence of a worse problem. Nobody is claiming that the w

Relative privation is fallacious because the logical existence of a bad problem isn’t negated by the existence of a worse problem. Nobody is claiming that the worse problem is fallacious, but rather that it doesn’t logically invalidate the bad problem. For example, the statement “a lot of people died on 9/11” is not logically negated by the statement “but a lot more people died during WW2”; the fact that the latter statement is true has no bearing on the validity of the former statement. Or to bring it back to Africa, the statement “there is food insecurity in America” is not negated by the statement “but there are famines in Africa.”