[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.

[TylerE]

They said nothing about punishment or consequences. You’re twisting their words, like, a lot.

[littlestymaar]

Are you for real?

Let's go back to the original quote:

> 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.

How isn't that talking about “punishment”? What do you think the last sentence is supposed to mean?

You either have a pathological level of confirmation bias, or acute reading deficiency, I'm afraid.