[idiotsecant]

This is quickly going to devolve into 'nobody suffers unless their suffering as at least as bad as the worst suffering that exists', so let's just go ahead and get that out of the way and move on to something less pointless.

[Bjartr]

GP could have just said "poverty" and the vast majority of unconstructive discussion that has followed could have been avoided.

Instead they said "abject poverty" as an emotional emphasizer, and people rightly called them out.

[porridgeraisin]

Yep. A lot of such people use words in order to elicit the reaction a legitimate use of said words would get, because they don't want the usually more muted reaction/attention using the correct word would get.

[Jabrov]

It's not about being pointless, it's just plain wrong.

The median (not average) household income in the US is 80K USD. p25 is 40K. p10 is 20K. They're struggling, sure.

But I wouldn't call that abject poverty.

[9rx]

> But I wouldn't call that abject poverty.

But you could. There is no law of the universe that is going to stop you. Words are something randomly made up by humans.

> it's just plain wrong.

Again, words are completely made up, so it can't really be wrong in the traditional mathematical sense. It could be misinterpreted, perhaps. Of course that is dependent on how you've chosen to randomly make up "wrong".

[porridgeraisin]

I know it's against the rules, but oh my this reminds of me a certain other popular forum site in its heyday.

[9rx]

Yes, it is nice that there are still glimmers of the good old days of the internet.

[scottyah]

Have you looked up the definition of abject poverty? It is "the most severe and hopeless form of human deprivation". It's the subject of the conversation, how is that pointless?

[win311fwg]

While you are able to look up someone's definition of abject poverty, the only definition that is relevant in this context is the one held by the author of the earlier comment. It is unlikely you can look up his definition (before he replies to those who have asked for the definition in force).

[latency-guy2]

If only their definition matters then their only purpose in this thread is to derail the conversation, or in other words railroad everyone else out because only they can be right.

People responding reject that, because if you're not being specific, you're not making an argument, you're just here to be an asshole.

Since you've made this point, I've gone ahead and reported that comment.

[win311fwg]

> because only they can be right.

Suppose their definition for abject poverty is: having an income equal to or below the median income. Yes, they would be right. Is it a problem that they are right?

However, you would also be right in agreeing that having an income equal to or below the median income equates to half the population, so you are wrong to think that only they can be right. Of course, that assumes you have used my definitions for these terms and not your own. It is likely that, once we are updated with your definitions, that you were right all along. What are your definitions for the terms you have used?

That's the beauty of discussion. You don't need to guess. You can ask!

[jmye]

> the only definition that is relevant in this context is the one held by the author of the earlier comment.

This is absolute nonsense. We use common language to refer to common things in understandable ways in order to communicate with each other. You don't get to just handwave baldly incorrect statements as "well maybe he just has a different personal definition" without basically rendering literally all conversation moot and pointless.

"Yeah, I know he said 2+2 is 5, but you don't know he defines 5" is just as patently silly.

[win311fwg]

> We use common language to refer to common things in understandable ways in order to communicate with each other.

Common doesn't mean ever-present. In practice, it is impossible for everyone to converge on a shared understanding for all terms. There are provably many people in the world who have never even heard the term "abject poverty" before. They cannot possibly understand what the term means to you. Fundamentally, "abject poverty" can only mean in that comment what the author believes it means. That may overlap with your understanding, but it also may not. We can also prove that he is not a mind reader and thus cannot tune it to your understanding. He is limited to his understanding and his understanding alone.

A good faith actor who believes there may be a discrepancy in understanding will seek clarification. That is what a discussion forum is all about. If one does not want to participate in discussion, why be here?