Printable View
What does it mean to be innocent? I am asking, because the word is used so much in US and UK both, but in DK it is almost exclusively used in connection with legal matters so I have no real idea of the concept apart from that.
Examples, 'innocent bystander' we would call 'bystander', 'innocent civilians' would be 'civilians', 'saving innnocent lives' would be 'saving lives'.
What is the opposite of 'innocent', when it is not 'guilty'?
Thoughts and comments appreciated.
In the examples you gave, I would interpret that as 'uninvolved bystander', or 'uninvolved civilians', meaning those who are caught up in something not of their own making. A woman walking by a bank and getting shot during a gun battle between police and the robbers would be an innocent, or uninvolved (in the actual robbery) bystander.
From my experience, no one is innocent after the age of 10. Just some are less guilty than others.
Nail on the head, Thorne. Here in the states we're a puritan nation, so those ideas of "innocence" are pretty deeply ingrained. Often I think that language like that comes into play in the court of public opinion. A bystander getting shot doesn't carry the same psychological weight in this country like, "an innocent bystander was gunned down."
Also sometimes innocence is used (perhaps inapropriately considering the words original definiton) to describe one who is unaware or less knowledgable in the ways of a given thing.
True, as in "innocent as a baby".Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
But then where does one draw the line between "innocent" and "stupid"?
Innocent of what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
So does this mean that 'innocent' has or had to do with religion, as in innocent of sins, originally? Or is it more to do with rules between people?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeityorDevil
I think so too, but then why 'innocent', not 'ignorant of' ?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Why 'stupid'? If it is something you do not know, it must be lack of experience, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I know a bride was supposed to be 'innocent', that is, a virgin and totally lacking in sexual knowledge, which means the wedding night must have been a profound shock. That is stupid.
I agree that 'innocence' as in purposely keeping others from knowledge is also stupid, if not oppressive, as it makes them less able to cope, or indeed manage their own lives.
Exactly, especially those who not only keep others from knowledge but who refuse to gain that knowledge for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
"Innocent" in English has two meanings, and like many such words, it's a gift to propagandists because it can be used in one sense while subliminaly evoking the other.
a) Not guilty of a crime or other misdeed.
b) Sinless, virtuous, unspoilt. Also tends, by implication, to suggest childish weakness.
So when, for instance, we are asked to protect "innocent civilians" in Libya, the literal meaning of the adjective is that they are not guilty of having taken part in the war (therefore should not be caught up in it.) But the word is, strictly speaking, redundant - civilians, by definition, excludes combatants - and its tautologous use is intended to evoke subliminal associations of virtue and weakness to suggest that these people are exceptionally worthy of help.