[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?

[littlestymaar]

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.

[s1artibartfast]

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.

[littlestymaar]

Yes, that's what they said. And I'm not giving my opinion on their take here.

But they said nothing about PFAS, and made no proposal to ban them.

Again, this is an abstract statement that says “stop shying away from punishing those bastards when they kill people”, not a proposal to ban PFAS in particular in this situation.