Amusingly, an attempt to minimize harm is *precisely*
what you were
arguing against, ... You now claim to be attacking another position
"We mustn't harm people", but thats a straw man. Your opposition was
taking the positions that "we can't needlessly harm people" (we must)
"reduce the amount that we unnecessarily harm people" and said so
explicitly.
It's not a strawman, it is exactly what (some) people were arguing.