Comments on: Two Quotes https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2006/09/16/two-quotes/ Culture, Politics, Academia and Other Shiny Objects Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:42:31 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.15 By: christopher m https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2006/09/16/two-quotes/comment-page-1/#comment-2050 Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:42:31 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=277#comment-2050 s clear that “blow jobs” are included under the general meaning of “sex”.</i> That doesn't seem clear to me at all. No doubt the meaning of "sex" varies by social context (and perhaps generationally as well). But if, say, a friend asked me, about someone I was dating, "Have you two had sex yet?" and my activity with the person had been limited to blow jobs or other non-intercourse activity, I certainly wouldn't say "Yes." "No" seems the truthful answer to me, though it's ambiguous enough that a clarification is probably called for: "Well, not actual sex, but..." It would simply be false, in the language I use, to say "Yes" and leave it at that.]]> I think it’s clear that “blow jobs” are included under the general meaning of “sex”.

That doesn’t seem clear to me at all. No doubt the meaning of “sex” varies by social context (and perhaps generationally as well). But if, say, a friend asked me, about someone I was dating, “Have you two had sex yet?” and my activity with the person had been limited to blow jobs or other non-intercourse activity, I certainly wouldn’t say “Yes.” “No” seems the truthful answer to me, though it’s ambiguous enough that a clarification is probably called for: “Well, not actual sex, but…” It would simply be false, in the language I use, to say “Yes” and leave it at that.

]]>
By: Timothy Burke https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2006/09/16/two-quotes/comment-page-1/#comment-1977 Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:29:02 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=277#comment-1977 Again, no doubt. But in this case, the statement is being made with a mock-concern for that legal issue, as what the President wants is to exempt a great many actions that commonsensically would be described as “outrages upon human dignity”. He is using legalism as a pretext to engage in Orwellian violence against the meaning of words.

]]>
By: Walt https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2006/09/16/two-quotes/comment-page-1/#comment-1976 Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:43:42 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=277#comment-1976 I see your point. I just don’t think it helps for those of us who care about civil liberties to mock one of its core principles, which is a clear advance statement of what the law requires. “Outrages upon human dignity” just isn’t clear, and people who are trying to obey the law are entitled to an interpretation, one way or another.

]]>
By: Timothy Burke https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2006/09/16/two-quotes/comment-page-1/#comment-1974 Sun, 17 Sep 2006 02:39:01 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=277#comment-1974 I think it’s a clear enough standard to make clear that “waterboarding” and other techniques are included under the meaning of the phrase. Just as I think it’s clear that “blow jobs” are included under the general meaning of “sex”. In both cases, the difficulty of precise legalisms is being used to obfuscate a clear *general* and *understood* meaning of a concept.

Which, I was given to understand by some of Clinton’s critics, was the scandalous thing about Clinton: that he would use legalisms to deflect common sense conceptions of the truth.

]]>
By: Walt https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2006/09/16/two-quotes/comment-page-1/#comment-1972 Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:45:01 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=277#comment-1972 Tim — You’re just having fun, right? You don’t think “outrages upon human dignity” is a clear enough standard for criminal prosecution, do you?

]]>
By: Jonathan Dresner https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2006/09/16/two-quotes/comment-page-1/#comment-1969 Sat, 16 Sep 2006 06:31:59 +0000 http://weblogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/?p=277#comment-1969 I think in this case “upon” is the problem, which is considerably more serious than…. never mind.

]]>