Yes, and in other contexts, better brakes make you go slower. Better brakes means bigger brakes: larger rotors (discs), larger and heavier calipers, etc. Larger brake rotors take more energy to accelerate (they're basically a bigger flywheel), so they decrease the car's acceleration. So if your goal is to have a car that accelerates as fast as possible, better brakes are actually a big detriment.

Some people argue that the Earth is flat. That doesn't mean they have a good point.

The morons you're referencing probably think cars should all go back to drum brakes and bias-ply tires so people think more about brake fade and tire grip. It's an idiotic argument. Disc brakes on bikes are better in every way, except weight (they add about 1 pound, maybe). Reducing performance available to a cyclist doesn't make any sense at all; you never know when you're going to need to stop suddenly in the real world.

Of course both things could be true...

No, you have it the other way around. Rubber brake pads on wheel rims fade with heat; disc brakes are able to dissipate far more heat, and are basically essential for long descents.

The only valid argument against disc brakes on bikes is that they weigh a little more (maybe 1 pound). I suppose you could also argue that brake fluid is more trouble to deal with than a cable, and certainly not as easy to jerry-rig, but hundreds of millions of cars use hydraulic brakes without any trouble these days, and I wouldn't want to have jerry-rigged brakes anyway.

Some drivers have complained about rain because the tears have been literally pulled out of them under the deceleration

Also, I drift corners instead of braking, it seems to be a lot faster if you nail the tire orientation on the exit.

Fair point. As the old saying goes "looser is faster". The risk, of course, is that you wind up in the wall with your velocity = 0. :-)