On 8/6/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/07, 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*.
We recognize that the argument about gays is completely bogus. 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".
Likewise, saying "you aren't banned, you're just banned from the only method you want to use" is equivalent to "you are banned".
I want a new camera, but I don't have money for it and don't actually want to pay for it anyway. I could just take it, but I'm banned from doing so by the law. This is unjust repression by my government - I have the right to a camera! The present law is tantamount to "you can have a camera, but you can't have it through the only method you want to use".
I'm not saying that the argument doesn't have merits, but the fact is, as Edmund Burke said, we must restrict freedom in order to have it. (Actually that's a completely irrelevant quotation, but if we're going to have funny analogies, we might as well go one step further.) I guess I mean, we recognise that some arguments are bogus and some are not - but it all depends on the precise situation. The way your analogies present the situation focuses on a number of variables but ignore others.
Exactly. Because, FWIW, I think we should be allowed to use TOR. But I don't think it has anything to do with gay marriage!