You were poor with privilege (according to your "about me" blog page). Others are poor without it. My response was not to the author, but rather to your respon

You were poor with privilege (according to your "about me" blog page). Others are poor without it. My response was not to the author, but rather to your response to someone saying that "poor" is always contextualized and there are poor today that are not at all well off. Your counter was "I was poor and I had things OK." That's not a compelling rejoinder. There are many poor that don't have that same experience. My point regarding variable isolation (which you call 'flawed logic') is to highlight that there are lots of kinds of poor people: there is no such thing as "simply being poor". This is why the true logical flaw is when you say things like "we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions". No, you can't. You can't speak of "the poor" as a monolithic entity, period. Yes, some poor today have it better than some wealthy of the past. But there are poor today that have it worse than people in the past. Which brings me, I suppose, to the point the author of the linked article makes: the poor on skid row do not, in point of fact, have "possession of consumer durables". That is the point the author of the post you replied to was trying to make. And while possibly most poor in rich-world nations are better off than most poor in rich nations of the past, that's not the original author's claim. The claim is that the poor of today are "the blessed of history." I see no reasons presented as to why that's true, and my knowledge of both history and the current world leads me to disagree (though again, that's beyond the point I was making).