I really wish people would not use words like "innocent" in this context. Exactly what do you mean by your statement? Do you mean they are not guilty of a crime? What crime, the crime of being adult? Or free from moral wrong? A few minutes watching a young boy pulling wings off flies will disabuse you of this misconception.
I just can't stand this nonsense about children being these pure little angels who can do no wrong. A blank slate, yes, perhaps. Words like "innocent" are just plain inapplicable and say more about the speaker than they do the kids.
They are free of moral wrong, like a lion who tears a zebra apart. Or like a shark who attacks a surfer.
Actions that are morally wrong to us are not morally wrong for those who lack morals. And if you can do no wrong you certainly can't be guilty. Therefore, innocent seems an apt label.
"I don't really care much for semantic arguments."
Semantics, ie. meaning, is the whole point of language. I do not think that it is useless nit-picking to point out that your use of words is wrong. The word "innocent" has a positive bias; you could not criticise someone as being innocent. But lacking "societal norms, customs, virtues or values" (from the article you linked to) could not possibly be described as a positive attribute.
Language means what it means. If you mean something different, say that instead. You can't wave away criticism by just saying "well who cares about word meanings anyway".
No doubt you don't like them, because those definitions are instructive.
The first one, "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil" is exactly what I am talking about. Think about the axioms implicit in that definition:
1. evil exists
2. there is no inherent evil, evil must be learned
3. we can therefore prevent "evil" by restricting knowledge
4. guilt and sin exist
And so on. These are exactly the kind of suppositions that people use when arguing against, say, sex education in schools. To protect "innocence".
You might think all of this is just irrelevant bickering but I think it's extremely important. "Innocent" is a highly loaded term, straining under the weight of its inherent assumptions - it's not a word, it's a whole potted worldview. I think it's useful to point that out. I've done that now, and the prosecution rests.
You know pj, deleting all your comments and thus ruining an interesting discussion doesn't make you right; it makes you a sore loser. The fact you have been reduced to such a childish "last word", rather than just admitting my point, speaks volumes.
I really wish people would not use words like "innocent" in this context. Exactly what do you mean by your statement? Do you mean they are not guilty of a crime? What crime, the crime of being adult? Or free from moral wrong? A few minutes watching a young boy pulling wings off flies will disabuse you of this misconception.
I just can't stand this nonsense about children being these pure little angels who can do no wrong. A blank slate, yes, perhaps. Words like "innocent" are just plain inapplicable and say more about the speaker than they do the kids.