1. I think the difference is minimal
2. The kind of pressure that the person has endured is a testament to his perseverence and resolve.
3. They are correleated but clearly there are some poor white people that get a boost for their hardships
4. You may have personal experience, but we know as LSAT afficionados that a quality of a part does not necessarily translate to a quality of the whole
I repeat! Where is the outrage against legacy admits? 
1. Well, then it would seem you agree with me.
2. But at the same time that individual's numbers are lower in the hypothetical, so their perseverence is questionable. They graduated, sure, and that's an accomplishment, but apparently the pressure got to them enough to adversely affect their performance significantly. I don't see that as a good quality.
3. It is my belief that such boosts are much less substantial and more rare. I believe law schools want a certain amount of minorities so that their schools appear diverse. Their publishing of what percentage of minority X attends their school is one of the reasons I feel this is the case. In my opinion all the poor white kid gets is a better financial aid package once already admitted.
4. I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here.
Personally I dislike legacy admits as well. In fact it's worse really since they can't even argue adversity as an excuse. However, just because it's worse doesn't make AA acceptable.