waauw wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:waauw wrote:It's all relative. What's called poverty in one country may not be considered poverty in another. Ergo there will always be poverty.
Yeah you're right. We probably just shouldn't try tbh.
Gosh, you must feel so intelligent now that you've used that sarcasm. Do you always discern secret messages inbetweenst other people's words?
You're right. I was initially cynical and attacked a strawman via sarcasm, but the secret message inbetweenst my words is:
Poverty is not relative in every context. The US has a definition of poverty
here, and other nations do as well. I don't believe that this definition of poverty is entirely accurate (I have my own criticisms), but poverty can be defined in a myriad of ways, so stating that there will always be poverty because it's relative is really generalist and therefore not always true.
BUT RDS IF ANY DEFINITION IS JUST AS VALID AS THE OTHERS, THEN AREN'T ANY ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE POVERTY USELESS?
That depends who you ask, but I would consider that there is already a collective understanding of what poverty means on different parts of the globe and that definition is wont to change. And to an extent I agree with you: are there different levels of poverty, therefore shouldn't poverty be evaluated on a continuum, and not binary as "you are in poverty" vs "you are not?" Probably, but:
How does that relative nature change how the issue is approached if it's true? What if it's not?
How does it change your attitude towards the issue in each situation?
Overall, I don't think it changes the way global poverty should be approached, and I'm not inclined to believe you think so either, so I don't see the merit in the statement other than to, well,
feel so intelligent for saying it.
