Bit of a circular definition problem, Jag -
Quote:
|
Poverty: Relative living conditions compared to the first world.
|
Quote:
|
First world lifestyles are supported by third world poverty.
|
This isn't the point I'm going after, what I'm going to do is attack the term 'supported', but I may as well do a clean job of demolition. If 'shit forgoten name of organisation' has a definition of poverty, would that be acceptable?