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.
