The argument has nothing to do with the definitions, but whether the term should be used. The N-word had a definition, too, but that doesn't mean it should have continued in common usage.

I understand the reluctance to make these changes---if you have the habit of using a word for a something all your life, it's going to seem irritating to change it if you have no idea why, or if you see the benefit for others but don't care since it doesn't benefit you personally.

So why is "felon" a label for life, and not "child"? Simply giving the definitions doesn't answer that question.

Child specifically describes a person actively in childhood.

Just like prisoner describes someone actively in prison.

Felon has a legal definition, and it means someone who has been convicted of a felony.

The desire to sanitize language 1984 style is baffling... If you were to change the definition of "felon" the way you want to, or ban its use to prevent thoughtcrime, a new equivalent word would be invented with the same definition: a person who has committed a felony. Because that is a useful word.

>The desire to sanitize language 1984 style is baffling...

If you go back to my original comment, you'll see that I wasn't making a judgement on whether such sanitization was a good idea, but described the perfectly rational reason someone might promote it (no 1984 Orwellian motives required).

>Because that is a useful word.

Now you're getting to the actual point. Is it always a useful word? If there were an exemplary employee at your business, who had worked there for 20 years and was professional and productive, would you describe him to someone else as a felon or would you (assuming the subject came up), merely note that he had committed a felony? And do you see the difference between the two in the way a third party would interpret your comment?