I love that blue in the sky! However, I don’t think it’s what it actually looked like. Wish it looked as pretty as that.

I agree with you. This is the future. However, at this point, the cost is immense and the benefit it very small. That’s what I’m saying. Not that ray tracing is bad, but that it’s just not that big of a deal at this point given its cost.

It looks good in Cyberpunk, but that’s like the very very top of the heap. And even in a game like Metro Exodus, if you lower the ray tracing settings, the difference is pretty much negligible. Control is supposed to be this incredible showcase of ray tracing but it just doesn’t look that good. Looks better? If you A/B them, yeah. But compared to an upgrade in resolution or frame rate, it’s just not really that important.

The impact of ray-tracing is completely overblown for nearly all games.

Not 6936 x 9248.

Yes, they typically work that way, but again, this article doesn’t have to deal with the premise explicitly in order to not commit a fallacy. “Look they didn’t explicitly defend a premise, therefore they must be trying to pull a fast one! Didn’t fool me because I can identify fallacies correctly!”

Yes, it is trying to get people to act out of an appeal to emotion. But that’s not a fallacy. His argument, if you understand it, is about using emotion to drive action. But that isn’t fallacious. “We should do this because people respond to emotion” isn’t using an emotional appeal to make the arguments, it is making an argument about emotional appeals.

I’ve repeated this over and over and you still don’t get it. You are just completely ignoring the whole point of everything I’ve said.

“Did you see an argument for purchasing equals deal children?” No, because, like I’ve said over and over, the argument assumes that to be true already, whether it is or not. Read my comments again if that helps.

I’m getting the last word because I’m correct about this. I know it’s an appeal to emotion, but it’s not used instead of an argument. That’s what an appeal to emotion fallacy is. I’m not even saying this argument is good; I’m pointing out that you’re misidentifying a fallacy. Goodbye.

“He’s using it as a premise for his argument.” Yes. Exactly. He’s not arguing that such premise is true, though. That’s the whole point. He’s starting with that premise. Which is not the same as arguing for it.

You are actually making my point for me. We’ve skipped over that argument because that’s not what the article is aimed at. If you have an issue with the premise, that’s different from saying that the argument relying on the premise is using a fallacy. Even then, he doesn’t even give an argument for that premise; he just assumes it.

Because he gives no argument supporting the premise, the fact that you think he made an appeal to emotion to defend it says that you are finding things that you either have bad reading comprehension skills or you’re a mind-reader of some sorts. You’re just assuming he made an appeal to emotion in an argument that is no where to be found. Either way, if you don’t understand why you’re wrong yet, you’re not going to.

You misread my comment. I was worried you’d take this route; that’s why I put my last paragraph in. It’s to show the reasoning even though I’m aware the example has flaws. I’m too tired to come up with one that will be easier to understand.

It’s an appeal to emotion, but it’s not used in place of an argument. That is, it’s not fallacious. You seem to be suggesting that the writer is using the emotional bit in place of an argument demonstrating that such actions do actually kill children. If you think that that’s what’s happening, you’re misunderstanding the point. That is not at all what he’s saying. The “scientific” argument is a premise on which his argument relies. You can dispute that premise, but he’s not arguing that this premise is true using an appeal to emotion.

That is not what this person is saying. They are saying that even though the argument relies on premises that you may disagree with, your issue should be with the premises and not the validity of the argument since there is no fallacy being committed.

“Appeals to emotion can lead us to preferable outcomes” appears to be the author’s conclusion and it’s arrived at without employing an appeal to emotion fallacy despite the fact that the conclusion is about appeals to emotion.

It actually isn’t. It isn’t using an appeal to emotion in place of the argument. It’s appealing to emotion to communicate the costs of our choices in a way that people can understand intuitively.

When you make a choice, you may not understand its full weight because the costs are too abstract. “If you buy this X pounds of carbon dioxide is released” or whatever. Even though that information may be 100% correct, it may not be in a form such that the consequences of your actions will be communicated to you in a way that you natively understand. For instance, even if it’s true that such amount of CO2 will kill Y many children, you may not realize this if the information isn’t given to you in a form that will make this apparent to you.

Of course this example I’ve used is contrived and the causal mechanism for unloading carbon isn’t simply buying a product, but I think the point I’ve made should be clear enough.

That’s not even close to being true. I can absolutely tell a difference.