This is quite the oversimplification of the value vs. costs of automated testing while also being completely orthogonal to the discussion. I'd never accept "automated testing" by itself as a strong argument to prefer PHP or anything for that matter.
I merely provided a rebuttal to the argument that PHP, or any other language, for that matter, is unreliable. I did not make the case that automated testing somehow makes PHP a preferred choice. How you test the code is what dictates reliability, not the language.
I'm not sure how you can possibly separate the concept of a rebuttal from that of making an argument. And as I've alluded, how you test code does not, in fact, dictate any form of quality or reliability in and of itself.
