If you admit they're different, act like it instead of saying emulation is piracy unless something. By saying what you did, you paint a narrative instead of conveying the truth.

The question was whether or not it was ok to pirate an old game that's now available on these newer micro consoles (NES Classic, SNES Classic, etc.).  And I said yes it's piracy.  And that it's always been piracy.  And that the only time it isn't piracy is when you own the game.  There was no question about emulation at all.  Where did I say emulation was piracy?  Because I am a huge advocate of emulation and piracy being two separate entities.

Even if you own the game, unless you rip it yourself it's considered piracy.

Legally, you may be correct.  Morally, I don't care and will download at my leisure because the developer has my money.  If I go and pay someone other than the developer to get a rom dumper for an NES cart, the developer still doesn't see a dime of that. And the result is exactly the same.  We're just arguing semantics at this point.

I do rip all of my PS1, PS2, Wii, etc. discs though.

But nowhere did I say that emulation is piracy.  Never have.  Never will.

I think you misunderstood the intent of my post.

Even if you own the game, unless you rip it yourself it's considered piracy.

The question was whether or not it was ok to pirate an old game that's now available on these newer micro consoles (NES Classic, SNES Classic, etc.).  And I said yes it's piracy.  And that it's always been piracy.  And that the only time it isn't piracy is when you own the game.  There was no question about emulation at all.  Where did I say emulation was piracy?  Because I am a huge advocate of emulation and piracy being two separate entities.

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. 

Its just that one emulation mega thread has a set of rules to keep it clean from users like you who would derail it with your bullshit.

In other emu related threads such as this one i made http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=232102&page=1# showing Persona 5 running in 4K using the new upscaling feature of RPCS3 you can talk about the ethics of it all you want, go ahead that thread is based on one of the games your protesting. I didnt even post that video in my emulation megathread to keep it clean from stuff like this. So knock yourself out.

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.