There are common definitions of what words mean. If the meaning of words become arbitrary then we lose the ability to communicate effectively.
An action was taken, e.g. picking up a quarter off the side walk. There is no need to put another label on it randomly, just call it what it is, picking up a quarter. By using a word that already has a commonly accepted meaning, and a negative one at that, and associate it with an innocent action you're already labeling it in a negative way for everyone else. Everyone (or at least majority of other people) thinks a thief is a bad person. If only you don't think so and label someone else doing nothing bad a thief, then you're labeling someone a bad person.
It's like me calling you a rapist. But I don't mean rapist in the typical way, I just mean anyone that has sex. So to me a rapist is not a bad person and I'll withhold judgement until I have more information. So I can just go around calling you a rapist right?
What are they? People assume their definition is common, but everything is much less clear than that. This causes frequent disagreements, and it's best to get more information.
>There is no need to put another label on it randomly, just call it what it is, picking up a quarter.
There is no need for me to label the action at all unless I'm in a position to explain what I mean. My position on the action is primarily private. Changing the definition is more useful in the other direction, when you call someone a thief I don't assume I have any idea what they did or what kind of person that makes them.
>Everyone (or at least majority of other people) thinks a thief is a bad person.
Using such labels to judge an entire persons worth is ridiculous in a number of ways. There are too many ways that both of us would consider innocent that can get you labeled a thief. I was almost booked for stealing $40 of gas after realizing I lost my wallet after filling the tank. Am I a bad person because of that?
>So I can just go around calling you a rapist right?
This started as me labeling an action as theft. If I walked around blindly calling people thieves I would expect the misunderstanding to cause problems for me.
That's what I mean with the rapist example too. If you have sex with someone, do I have the right to call you a rapist first and withhold judgement until I have more information? If for me a rapist isn't necessarily a bad act.
No, you are jumping straight into calling someone a rapist. If I described perfectly consensual sex and you replied "it's rape" with no explanation, you should also expect repercussions for the misunderstanding.
Labeling an act primarily privately and publicly labeling a person are vastly different.
This might answer your question though. If you pointed at someone and said "this person is a rapist," I would withhold judgment until learning more details. A label is not enough to evaluate someone's life. And I try to limit who i casually toss such labels onto, preferring to give some detail into their act.
Everybody does that all of the time, your definition for words are based on your own experiences.
>And assuming theft unless otherwise proven?
No, assuming theft. More things are called theft.
>How on earth is assuming someone committed theft limiting judgement?
You still think that a thief is a bad person. I assume basically everyone has committed theft, so withhold judgment until I have more information.