I didn’t say they’d torch you. The scenario can include them graciously allowing you to depart your car before they burn it to the ground.
Seriously, you think it’s reasonable for a mob to destroy a car because its presence “triggered frustrations in the crowd”? Bear in mind this isn’t France we’re talking about, where torching cars to express frustration is part of the common culture. This is San Francisco.
I think it’s reasonable for a mob to destroy one of the many self-driving cars that have been pissing off San Francisco residents for a very long time now when it tries to drive into them during a big celebration where cars weren’t even supposed to be.
Alright, so you’re fine with mobs destroying the property of anyone that “pisses them off.” I’d say that’s a slippery slope, but you’re already basically at the bottom.
I’m fine with mobs destroying something that has been a public menace for years.
Why are you making personal attacks? I did not attack you. Are you able to carry out a conversation with someone you’re disagreeing with and not make personal attacks?
What personal attacks? I’m giving you ample opportunity to clarify your position on this matter, and it keeps ending up in support of mob violence and lawlessness. I think that’s a terrible position to take, but that’s an attack on the position, not the person.
I’d say that’s a slippery slope, but you’re already basically at the bottom.
As for my position, I supported it very well. If a public menace is allowed on the streets, then I have no problem with people taking the law into their own hands.
Sorry, I’m not a legal absolutist. I don’t believe that every law should be followed no matter what the situation or circumstance. And there are some laws which I refuse to follow entirely. Like the one here in Indiana which says that I can’t use cannabis.
These cars are a public menace. They block traffic for no reason, they drive into people, they keep getting into accidents.
Bay area first responders also think they’re a menace. So yes, people should listen to ambulance drivers and firefighters when they are telling them that the city is giving its blessings to something inherently unsafe and I do not have an issue when they take care of the problem themselves.
Maybe you would sit back and let the government-sanctioned orphan crusher keep crushing orphans and stand in the way of anyone who would pull the off switch because that would be lawlessness, but I would turn it off.
Is that really all you had to say to what I responded to you with? You wanted me to clarify my position, I clarified it, and you have nothing to say about that? Really?
I’m pretty sure I’m not a self-driving car. I’m also pretty sure if I saw a big crowd of people, I wouldn’t keep driving forward.
I didn’t say they’d torch you. The scenario can include them graciously allowing you to depart your car before they burn it to the ground.
Seriously, you think it’s reasonable for a mob to destroy a car because its presence “triggered frustrations in the crowd”? Bear in mind this isn’t France we’re talking about, where torching cars to express frustration is part of the common culture. This is San Francisco.
I think it’s reasonable for a mob to destroy one of the many self-driving cars that have been pissing off San Francisco residents for a very long time now when it tries to drive into them during a big celebration where cars weren’t even supposed to be.
Who got hurt here? Waymo? Fuck Waymo.
Alright, so you’re fine with mobs destroying the property of anyone that “pisses them off.” I’d say that’s a slippery slope, but you’re already basically at the bottom.
I’m fine with mobs destroying something that has been a public menace for years.
Why are you making personal attacks? I did not attack you. Are you able to carry out a conversation with someone you’re disagreeing with and not make personal attacks?
What personal attacks? I’m giving you ample opportunity to clarify your position on this matter, and it keeps ending up in support of mob violence and lawlessness. I think that’s a terrible position to take, but that’s an attack on the position, not the person.
This one:
As for my position, I supported it very well. If a public menace is allowed on the streets, then I have no problem with people taking the law into their own hands.
Sorry, I’m not a legal absolutist. I don’t believe that every law should be followed no matter what the situation or circumstance. And there are some laws which I refuse to follow entirely. Like the one here in Indiana which says that I can’t use cannabis.
These cars are a public menace. They block traffic for no reason, they drive into people, they keep getting into accidents.
Bay area first responders also think they’re a menace. So yes, people should listen to ambulance drivers and firefighters when they are telling them that the city is giving its blessings to something inherently unsafe and I do not have an issue when they take care of the problem themselves.
Maybe you would sit back and let the government-sanctioned orphan crusher keep crushing orphans and stand in the way of anyone who would pull the off switch because that would be lawlessness, but I would turn it off.
I was describing your position on the slope. If you think that’s an attack, perhaps your position isn’t very good.
Is that really all you had to say to what I responded to you with? You wanted me to clarify my position, I clarified it, and you have nothing to say about that? Really?
Waymo is not a person.
Does that make torching the car okay?
Yes.
Good luck arguing that in court.
what is legal isn’t synonymous with what is right
Thanks! I don’t think I’ll need any luck though, as I am not subject to such a court appearance.
Waymo’s insurance company anyway. And Waymo’s reputation.
Oh well.
Crap self-driving cars are now self aware, posting on the Internet, and think they are human. Everybody grab a torch