[idopmstuff]

> Your argument that human drivers suck commits the fallacy of whataboutism.

No, it doesn't. Self-driving cars are potential substitutes for human-driven cars. If self-driving cars cause fewer injuries/accidents/etc. per mile driven, then everyone will be safer if we replace human-driven cars with them. If you object to self-driving cars being on the road even if they're safer than human-driven cars, you are implicitly saying that your preference is for more people to be injured.

[jonathankoren]

Wow. This is an argument.

You start with a common, but controversial hypothetical, that in the future self-driving cars may be safer than humans, and then conclude with that opposing self-driving cars today, which of course are not the hypothetical safer than humans car, is advocating for actual humans to be injured or killed.

That’s some real undergrad level bullshit.

[idopmstuff]

No, you just didn't read what I wrote. At no point did I assert anything about the relative safety of self driving cars. I said that if you oppose self-driving cars EVEN IF they're safer...

That's called the conditional. It means that I'm not saying that thing is true; rather, it means that I am saying that if we take that thing to be true, then something follows logically.

The concept of things being conditional is pretty simple, so I guess in that sense it's undergrad level.

[gonehome]

I remember reading somewhere that some large percentage of people can’t understand conditionals - I found it hard to believe, but I’ve been noticing it more and more.