I'm not sure why you keep spinning this as a valid response to anything.

This is the full quote of the parent: > As for people getting sick and dying, they either don’t care, or they want people to get sick and die.

Lets break it down. Lets say some of your actions are causing harm, there's basically three options: 1. you don't know this is happening 2. you know, but continue because you don't care, and you can make money not caring 3. you know, and somehow this is beneficial to you, unlikely but possible

(The default option, which is always available, is to stop operations, which they have obviously also not done.)

Since DuPont obviously knew this was causing harm, #1 is out, so #2 and #3 remain. This is just deduction by elimination, not a value judgement.

No amount of spinning this argument is going to change this. I think your last line here makes it obvious who's straw-manning.