Lying is a natural. It is a gift that humans and few other species share. Every child that matures into a capable adult learns how to lie. They experiment with lying. They test their ability to lie. Children who don't learn to lie are emotionally and intellectually stunted.

It is effective parenting that instills in the child the knowledge that lying is only so effective. It gets you some distance, but when the lie is discovered you crash. People distrust you. They won't help you when you need it. Honesty has value as well.

If parents give in to the lies, because they lack the courage to punish them, the child pays the price later in life. If parents don't teach their children that lies and dishonesty have negative consequences, and if lies are continually rewarded, then that's what the child is going to learn best.

Parents who reward lies are doing their children a great disservice as well as the world who has to tolerate them as they grow up.

Huh? Do you have any hard data to back up this bizarre proposition? Certainly everything I've ever experienced speaks rather forcefully against it. The bullying in schools, the ostracism of anyone different, the teasing. This is not learned behaviour, it is the default state, to be overcome by education and socialisation, not to be encouraged or preserved.

Methinks you are confusing the reality of children with what you wish or imagine children are. There is a reason "acting like a child" is not a compliment.

I think the problems you mention are largely caused by today's school environments, not cured by them.

I think the US public school system is deeply flawed, but one of the few things I don't blame it for is the cruelty of children. Kids are just cruel.

Kids who are loved are cruel, they lie and they cheat. Children that are not loved are simply even worse.

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

And since we're linking to wikipedia, here's one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_Hypothesis