I guess the person above you means what if someone clicks "accept" on the cookie banner but also has DNT turned on.

To which I'd say: they shouldn't even see the cookie banner in that case. DNT alone is enough.

Yup. If I'm going around my daily business wearing a shirt that says, "no sex for me, please!" Then please do not come up to me and say, "but, would you like to have sex with me?"

And if I say "yes, actually, even though it was very rude of you to ask, given the shirt that I am wearing...in fact, I would like to have sex with you," then you should at least have the decency to wait for me to take my shirt off before having sex with me.

If I decide it's really not worth the effort to take the shirt off, then it turns out, actually, no, I really did not want the sex after all.

This is the best analogy I've heard in a while, thank you.

Would be irrelevant, because the DNT-header will be sent with every request, so for all practical purposes will be later than any other kind of consent.

There can be a case where the end user (person), logs on the site - then sets a permission/consent to be 'tracked' (whatever), then a cookie/localstore persists - so the DNT is not relevant.

Consent/tracking doesn't mean solely 'cookie' banners.

No. Ambiguous consent is no consent. And continuing to send DNT is ambiguous, because the tracker can not distinguish between intent and accident.