[mensetmanusman]

No, he's saying we shouldn't use PFAS for carpet or military firefighting, but we should for semiconductor manufacturing where we have control over waste streams.

[bigbillheck]

> we should for semiconductor manufacturing where we have control over waste streams

Note that this has not historically been the case, see for example all those superfund sites in SV.

[littlestymaar]

Nobody is talking about banning them outright for all purpose here though.

[TylerE]

People here, like tehjoker, are proposing total bans in this very thread.

[littlestymaar]

The thread starts here:[1].

There's no comment from a user called “tehjoker” nor any comments talking about total bans, in this thread.

Also, in another, different, threat, “tehjoker” is also not proposing a total ban, you're reading his comment wrong.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39231091

[llbeansandrice]

That's a very bad faith paraphrase of their single comment in this thread:

> For what it's worth, depending on the harms, a sudden total ban is not out of the question as being beneficial to humanity as a whole. It would just be disruptive to enterprise, boo hoo. We don't need to always treat bad actors with kid gloves.

Hardly the extremism you're implying.

[s1artibartfast]

They are quite literally proposing a total ban. And then following it with some simplistic and emotionally charged rhetoric.

[littlestymaar]

No they aren't! This comment isn't proposing anything!

They are arguing that even total bans should not be dismissed by default, and that there can exist situations “depending on the harms” that justifies a total ban.

And they did not say that in a vacuum, but as an answer to another comment that straight out dismissed total ban as an option.

This comment is in no way advocating for a total ban of PFAS in particular.

[TylerE]

They are outlining a scenario where they would consider such a ban desirable. How is that not proposing it?