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.
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.
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.