My original point was really meant to be that I don't think any of this is deep, and that article seems to (acidentally) back that up. I spent a fair amount of time with philosophy students when I was at university and they would often waste time getting tangled up in semantics having discussions that sounded deep but really weren't. The solution is: accept that words have meanings that are fuzzy around the edges and don't let it worry you. There are contexts where you actually must let it worry you (e.g. determining if someone broke the law) but come up with a tighter definition in any circumstance like that, while accepting that the word will still be used more loosely in other contexts.

I hadn't seen that article before and didn't mean to refer to it. In fact the author is making an exceedingly simple mistake confusing two totally different things. The first is that a word that has a fuzzy meaning, and you notice that by looking at the edges of its meaning (e.g. is something still a vehicle if it doesn't transport people?). As I said, that is expected and not worth dwelling on. The second is using it as an analogy: is a salad a vehicle for dressing? Is a film a vehicle for an actor? Getting mixed up with the first question is a pretty basic mistake. When Forrest Gump says "life is like a box of chocolates" (technically a simile because of use of the word "like" but similar idea) you might think it's silly but not because the box of chocolates doesn't satisfy the literal meaning of "life". As with salads and films, that's not the edge of the meaning of the word; it's the very core meaning of the word used in a different context.