@
AAFitz,
and anybody else who doubts the power of "compared to what?"But a comparison at least allows us to imbibe the
magnitude of any perceived problem. If the problem is not as serious as the advocate imagines, then the response should not be as serious. For example, "In DoomYoshiTown, Crime has run rampant; we need stricter rules and harsher punishments." But the crime there is the lowest in the world, so obviously that statement is extremist. We can tell it's extremist by only comparing its claim with other situations/events/places/etc. Since it's extremist, (or rather, since the imagined crime level is not at all rampant), then we don't need to take seriously the advocacy of stricter rules and harsher punishments.
That's one reason why we need to ask, "compared to what?"
So... "x is violent"
How violent is X compared to other goods? Resources should be allocated efficiently, and this requires prioritization; therefore, we need to compare the violence of X to the violence of other things.
Comparison is always extremely important. "there's evidence of it affecting children, then and has the ability to affect children, so we should limit it"
All political action comes with a cost, and that is the opportunity cost. As we spend resources on dealing with this problem, what else could we have spent those resources on? We must compare the perceived net benefits of policy A with other policies; otherwise, we would always scramble for any public policy promised by any politician to any gullible voting public. Gee, that may even lead politicians to favor deficit spending, thus creating long-term systemic problems which are overcome unpleasantly.
That's why making comparisons matters and why we need to ask, "compared to what?," when someone expresses concern about something.
(if you use this method against people like PLAYER, it undermines their arguments too).