Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com