The system responds to a set of inputs. It may be more complex than a single switch, but the function is little different than a power window that also has a lock to keep from being engaged
Hint: when you are making a pedantic argument, you really can't afford to slip in equivocal phrases like "little different."
Oh noes! The car is deciding for me whether a window can be engaged or not! Apparently checking to see if the brakes or window is locked before engaging is decision making now
Did it feel particularly clever of you to introduce 'lock' into the previous sentence, and then attempt to conflate it with the locking of a wheel? Unfortunately, that fails to avoid the central fallacy of your argument, which is a misidentification of who or what is making a decision (hint: a decision involves a choice between options.)
Hint: if you are attempting to ridicule someone, but you make a ridiculous extrapolation of their position and end up ridiculing that instead, the only one looking ridiculous is yourself. Jon Stewart made a career out of ridiculing people who did this.
Pumping the brake I applied is apparently decision making now.
Did you decide to pump the brakes? (hint: no.)
Do you have any idea how absurd you sound?
I have to admit that it is a bit silly spending any time replying.
It's not like I can't perform the same function without the ABS.
It's not like you can't perform emergency braking without AEB.
And as already demonstrated[sic], I can choose whether to engage the ABS by simply taking my foot off the brake and reapplying.
By then, as you have already 'demonstrated', the ABS has already made a decision and pumped the brakes.
Where is my disengage mechanism?
No, this line of thinking follows in the line of computers are magic, where a degree of complexity is apparently deciding for you. It's bunk, and is a red herring to the real question of the brakes being automatically applied as I swerve out of the way, and the car becomes uncontrollable. I see many lawsuits in the future.
If you had stuck to this position, you would have been making a useful (or at least arguable) contribution to the discussion. Hint: just because you have a valid position, it does not follow that any claim you make in its support automatically inherits that validity, or even makes sense.
Do you really want to go there?
I have no intention of following you into the hole you have dug for yourself. I will stay on the rim and maybe hand you a spade.