Emulation - The Legalities, Ethics, Benefits and Drawbacks

[AngryLittleAlchemist]

Cerebralbore101 said:

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

What leads you to making these big sweeping conclusions? Do you honestly think I disqualified it because it happened in the past? No, I disqualified it because that past event doesn't make sense as an example now. 

We're talking about emulation of Wii U and PS3 games - games that came out on dying consoles. The moral dichatomy of an emulator coming out almost immediately after a console launches, and what you actually take issue with on this forum - talking about PS3 and Wii U games - is very different. 

The bolded is the same exact thing. The entire reason why people disqualify things that happened in the past is because they aren't applicable to today. I don't know what argument you thought I was making here, so I don't know what argument you were critiquing in your post. But I responded anyway because "But that happened in the past!" is almost never a good argument. 

Anyway it's not enough to say that two things are different, in order to conclude that a comparison/analogy doesn't apply. You need to point out the differences between the two things, and then point out why those differences change the outcome of the argument. In other words point out why the differences are relevant. 

For example: John was given an apple at 3pm, and Jane was given an orange at 3pm. Both went to the lunchroom to eat their fruit. Therefore both will return at the same time. It's not enough to say "but apples and oranges are different!". You need to point out that since an orange has a skin, it must be peeled before eating, which will likely take more time than simply eating the apple. The skin is the relevant difference inthe two fruits that changes the outcome of the argument. Another Example: John ate an apple, and Jane ate an orange. Therefore both will recieve vitamin C from eating the fruit. Now suppose somebody says "Oh but that's not true because apples and oranges are different!" Well that argument fails, because the differences are not relevant to the argument. 

But again, I didn't even have an argument to make. I was simply asking VGpolyglot a question. It wasn't rhetorical or anything. So there's no argument to apply the differences to in the first place. This is why I don't believe in reading between the lines. It leads to serious mistakes like this. So please don't get angry with me for not seeing something that you feel was obviously implied. 

Great job with the condescending example. If you can't even tell the differences between the two then I don't know what to tell you man ... Not my problem, that's definitely yours.