= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Notes on Autonomous Cars - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (139)
That particular claim I personally witnessed only once or twice - which counts for little. However, I've seen the more general pattern all too often: "I personally object to X, therefore X should be forbidden for everyone." Gay marriage, abortion, THC, you name it. It's rare to find a stance of (hyperbolically speaking) "I object to that activity, but I will fight to the death for your right to do it.", or even to legally tolerate it. As such, even a priori (but based on the posteriors on many other issues) I'd expect for that pattern to apply to autonomous cars as well.
Instantiated to this instance: People who don't want autonomous cars because they deem them unsafe, or because they prefer to drive their SUVs themselves, would not mind taking away the rights of others to use them. At least, that's my claim.
(If someone feels strongly such a phenomenon does not exist and we find a good way to gather broader evidence, we could set up a bet, going to a charity of the winner's choice.)
Frankly, I've seen a lot more instances of people who prefer not to drive SUVs themselves attempting to take away the rights of those who do than the other way around.
Which would exactly be supporting my point of "I don't like / object to X, so it should be forbidden for everyone!" I could have used your sentence just the same.
If you think of evidence that would contradict my claim, it would be people who oppose (or even just don't like) X not wishing for X to be illegal.
At this point your argument appears to be "I and people similar to myself like to force our preferences about cars down other people's thoughts; therefore, so does everybody else". Sounds like a case of psychological projection to me.
If you've "seen a lot of instances of people who prefer not to drive SUVs themselves attempting to take away the rights of those who do" you seem to have observed the same pattern I did. As for the "force our preferences about cars", I do not know what you mean, since it's not a topic I'm particularly invested in. Personally, I use whatever gets me from A to B comfortably and safe, signalling be damned.
I also like the as much ability to choose what point B is, not to mention, the ability to decide at B whether to go to C or back to A without planning out the whole trip ahead of time. This is why I prefer cars to public transportation.
As I think I already mentioned once, that's a very common (maybe the majority) stance in Italy about abortion.
A good counter example. It's curious but heartening that a country as seemingly catholic as Italy still accepts the right of others to choose differently. As opposed to, say, Ireland.
Vegetarianism is another one -- I don't think many vegetarians wish eating meat was illegal.
Yep. When people complain of the Church's influence in Italian politics, I tell them about Ireland (I studied there for a year), including stuff like alcohol sales being banned on Good Friday. (OTOH, the Church does have ridiculous privileges fiscally in Italy, among other things.)
Who the hell is downvoting everything, anyway?
Given their stated reason for not eating meat, a reasonable argument could be made that this behavior is hypocritical.
What are you talking about? The vegetarians I've met vary widely in their stated reasons not to eat meat, with many of them being some variety of "I just don't like it".