[scott_siskind]

I find it very easy to understand where parent commenter is coming from. Even though this may not be obvious, this is very much a competition. A competition for attention, for emotional support, or simply for validation. And when you've experienced the neglect, being ignored by society and generally the experience of homelessness or any other terrible circumstances, and see someone with better circumstances getting support and help, it should naturally lead to a feeling of anger, unfairness (whether conscious or not).

This is what's happening here. Also, all the comments complaining of "whataboutism", "not true scotsman" and so on show a profound lack of empathy with this commenter. You're complaining that this commenter is not showing empathy to OP, when no-one is showing any empathy to his (or other people's) harsher circumstances.

[imtringued]

You must be misunderstanding the nature of poverty if you think so. Someone with better circumstances is by definition getting better support and help than someone with worse circumstances otherwise their circumstances would not be better. The more help you get the richer you are and there is no upper bound to that but if you don't get enough help that's when you are poor. I like the literacy example. Someone who learned to read and write at a school received more help than someone who didn't go to school. Now extend this to high school, university and all the job experience you got during your career. Someone who has gotten more help is not always deserving less help, especially if they can use that help to support themselves and free up or contribute resources to help others.

If you think this is a zero sum game then diverting that attention to someone else will not solve poverty. One person will become poorer, the other will become less poor. The "real" loser is one who believes in zero sum thinking.