>>76752249She's a little kid. She doesn't have the span of understanding that an adult has. The whole world, in her mind, is what's around her. It's devastating when that's taken away from a child.
These kind of things are relative only to children. You're judging a child's thought process compared to an adult's. For example, if your mom came to you right now and said she was going to give away all your old toys from when you were a kid, you might feel a little conflicted, but you're grown up now and would be fine with it. Whereas if this happened while you were a kid, it'd be devastating. Those toys are your whole world. It's what you put your hours of time into every day. It's your passion.
Children don't need to be war-torn soldiers who've seen poverty and mass killings in order to understand sadness. We all live in our own worlds where our pain is relative to the world we live in mentally. On a grand scale, living without eating and being hit by your parents is definitely worse than moving away from home. But everyone has their own scale of what's bad relative to what they've been through. If you live in a "world" of poverty, then it sucks, but that's the world you live in, so your scale of what's bad is further down. People who don't live in poverty find less bad things as devastating because that's as far as they've gotten on a scale of what's bad. But if the rich person suddenly now lives in poverty, it's going to be such a wreck for them that it goes beyond their original scale.
So arguably, the affect of sadness poverty has on an ex-rich person is worse than on someone who's lived in poverty your whole life.
I hope I'm making sense here. The point is every person has their own scale judging what's sad based on the life they've lived. It doesn't invalidate any pain that any person has.
