You may check the Collins Thesaurus as well, which lists "lacking" (adj) as synonymous with "deprived" (adj):
Yes, in the social context (again). Hence the existence of terms such as poor, destitute and down at heel, both of which relate solely to social deprivation, as other synonyms.
And don't forget Random House/Kerner/Webster's more generalized version of the term:
This definition doesn't actually support your assertion, though. "Marked by deprivation" reads as societal context again, which I'd love to reinforce by quoting the definition of "depravation" but this just circularly references back to "deprived".
It's telling that none of the three definitions given by Random House for the root word "deprive" (1. to divest of something possessed or enjoyed; dispossess; strip. 2. to keep from possessing or enjoying something withheld: to deprive a child of affection.
3. to remove from office.) corroborates your definition.
But all of this is tedious nonsense, superfluous fluff
I don't know what amuses me more- the last ditch attempt to try and address critique by casting it if as irrelevant semantics or a mediocre, intellectually bereft early-college-grade token nihilist asserting anything said by another individual is "tedious nonsense" or "superfluous fluff" after doing such a piss poor job of debating.
That was just a long-winded way of saying "We don't care about others' opinions".
Er, no, It's a glaring logical hole in your argument that you seem entirely incapable of comprehending. Things that are hypothetical don't exist. Things that don't exist can't have opinions. One needs to exist in order to make a decision about whether they wish to exist, so the only way of creating the actual circumstances for that decision to be made is
to reproduce. Those opinions are nonexistent in the event that a child does not exist, therefore those opinions cannot be considered because they are nonexistent.
That's quite aside from how idiotic the notion of considering nonexistent future opinions is logically. At the time the decision is made, those opinions are both unknown and unknowable. It's basically a monsterous manifestation of hindsight bias.
It is objective fact: All sentient, living organisms die, and in the process endure immeasurable amounts of pain and stress.
It's difficult to argue this is "objective fact" given it's filled with hyperbolic drivel like "immeasurable". But all I'm left wondering is how you can possibly maintain these positions with any integrity given that you, clearly, exist and have not decided to cease what you, by your own admission, believe is a life filled with nothing but unmitigated suffering? Your own continued existence is effectively proof that you known everything you've said is utter hogwash.
Do you think individuals in Ethiopia feel that way?
Yeah probably, given that Ethiopia is the shining jewel of economic and social development in sub-Saharan Africa.