IMO the point is that those semantic quagmires always exist, especially if you're trying to make rules about something as nebulous as human language. And ambiguity is really common, too. Like, consider a rule against "hate speech" — that's ambiguous as heck! Even if you try to really nail it down, there will always be a zillion ways that people can try to skirt by on a technicality.

And even if you do agree on the spirit of the rules, they're still up for interpretation! Like, maybe everyone agrees that human life outweighs park rules, but disagrees on whether making rule exceptions for cops helps or hinders that directive.