Misleading Colloquial Language

In very casual or intentionally philosophical discussion alike (everything is philosophical, but not everything is equally foundational/abstract and many people never realize everything is philosophical), there are numerous words or phrases that people might be accustomed to hearing, yet they are ultimately very irrelevant to the actual ideas being conveyed.  Words mean whatever is intended by them and needlessly incompetent communication is still incompetent communication and utterly pointless.  There are various forms this can take, all of them able to be understood for what they are, identified, and avoided for maximum linguistic clarity.

For less overtly philosophical phrases, take "sleeping with" someone as an example.  Sex could occur right before or after someone is literally asleep, but it is absolutely not the same as actually sleeping next to or in the same room as someone else.  It is a very misleading phrase.  Yes, some people have heard it enough that they can tell the probable intention behind the words in a given context, and yes, all language is ultimately arbitrarily assigned to concepts, but there is such a thing as unnecessary levels of ambiguity or outright asinine phrasing, and to believe that "sleeping with" is a strong substitute to describe "having sex with" is irrational.  Prudery might convince someone to use a different phrase than the direct, accurate one out of submission to cultural norms--or someone might actually be stupid enough to think that there is no linguistic inaccuracy here.

For a more science-oriented example, what of when people say that sugar rots teeth?  In actuality, according to what is ultimately hearsay and mere sensory perceptions (but still affiliated with the relevant evidence/paradigm), it is not sugar that destroys teeth.  It is bacteria, Streptococci mutans and sobrinus, that feed on sugar left on the enamel.  They produce an acid, and it is this that breaks down the enamel, not the sugar itself.  To say that sugar is causally to blame according to what the evidence suggests is misleading, yet some people still do it all the time.  This phrase is not even a euphemism for something else like "sleeping with" is for having sex.  It is just a misrepresentative description!

For something more abstract and important than euphemisms or health science, there is the way that some people misuse phrases like "necessary truths" in reference to logical axioms or other logical necessities.  Evangelical apologists, for instance, might say that logical truths are necessary truths, but their acknowledgement of this is often dependent purely on reactions to the impossibilities of relativism and not true knowledge of reason.  If this was not the case, they would not insist that God created everything, including truths that are correct by inherent necessity (and thus do not and cannot depend on anything else since there are intrinsically true).  They would also not think that the laws of logic are in any way made to be true by God when God's existence has to be consistent with axioms to even be possible, much less necessary.

Be they euphemisms, inaccurate summaries, or very confused but explicitly metaphysical statements, misleading language is very commonly and unthinkingly employed by plenty of non-rationalists on a very regular basis.  Logic and the concepts it governs are objective, while all words are mere arbitrary, mental/social constructs.  There is no word that could not have been assigned to a different concept than what it is popularly associated with.  There is still a difference between knowingly using words that conflict with conventional meanings (or using misleading words sarcastically) and using misleading language without even realizing how imprecise or unfitting it really is.