While that is true of general day-to-day speech or vernacular (vocal), that fails with regards to anything that is reasonably technical, or written, and making a comparison between the two overgeneralizes and is apples to oranges. Both are flawed ways of thought.
If you've ever tried to communicate the structure of a binary tree, abstract syntax, what makes up determinism, syntactical vs lexical parsing, systems properties, or anything else that is highly technical there are specific technical words which are used fundamentally to describe the structure, or behavior, and these meanings do not vary.
They have specific meaning to describe specific things. Communication is the sharing of meaning, and its receiver based. If the receiver has no words to describe it, or the words used have so many possible meanings; they won't understand. Its the all is nothing. There is a signal or there isn't.
If you corrupt language and communication calling something its not, and doing so in a way that can cause loss under any circumstance on someone else, you then are arguably so much worse than a liar, engaging in crazy making behavior, and definitely lack credibility. This is true even if you do not intend this which is why one must be careful in what they say and not bandy words (and their meanings) about irresponsibly.
To be clear, that includes the loss of time and confusion resulting from misleading others. There's enough deceit in the world without adding to the noise or legitimizing corrupt acts.
Corruption of language has no place in civil and rational conversation.
