On 8/6/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Anthony wrote:
Erm, hi, banned user here.
If I'm not misremembering, you are not banned. It's simply that you have made the personal choice to only be able to edit through TOR, and TOR exit nodes are by policy to be blocked on sight. You are at any time free to edit without using TOR.
Yeah, and gay people aren't banned from marrying, either. They can marry th opposite sex just like straight people can. It's their choice to only pick marriages that are not allowed; there are plenty of other marriages which are allowed to them.
True, but how is that relevant?
Because it's an *analogy*.
So, all analogies are relevant?
We recognize that the argument about gays is completely bogus.
We do? The argument you gave seemed legitimate to me.
We know very well that "sure, you can marry, you just can't marry anyone you'd want to marry" is equivalent to "you can't marry at all".
Well, no, it's not equivalent. Similar in effect, perhaps, but not equivalent.
Likewise, saying "you aren't banned, you're just banned from the only method you want to use" is equivalent to "you are banned".
OK, so getting back to this analogy thing, if I tell someone who wants to vandalize Wikipedia that they aren't banned, they're just banned from vandalism, that's equivalent to telling them that they are banned?
Hmm, I guess it kind of is, when you think about it...