Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by TylerE 867 days ago
People here, like tehjoker, are proposing total bans in this very thread.
2 comments
littlestymaar 867 days ago
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

link
llbeansandrice 867 days ago
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.

link
s1artibartfast 867 days ago
They are quite literally proposing a total ban. And then following it with some simplistic and emotionally charged rhetoric.
link
littlestymaar 867 days ago
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.

link
TylerE 867 days ago
They are outlining a scenario where they would consider such a ban desirable. How is that not proposing it?
link
littlestymaar 867 days ago
For that scenario to be a proposal, the hypothesis of the said scenario should be asserted first. They just said: “should this be a big enough harm to humanity as a whole we should not shy away from a total ban”, but he's not arguing that there is a big enough harm at stake here.

And they aren't even talking specifically about PFAS in this comment in the first place! They're answering, in the abstract, to a commenter that argues against total bans as a matter of principle. All they're saying is “I disagree that we should always dismiss the option of a total ban, there are situations where it is justified”. This isn't a proposal for a total ban of PFAS in any way.

link
s1artibartfast 867 days ago
They literally declared that the only harms are to enterprise and are trivial.

>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.

Total ban should be considered against harms.

>It would just be disruptive to enterprise, boo hoo.

Harms are trivial because they are to enterprise.

>We don't need to always treat bad actors with kid gloves.

Implying that enterprises are bad actors, and deserve more harms.

link