The claim that "any amount may have negative effects" (in the article) is NOT the same as the claim that "you can detect if I had a single drop 20 years ago" (the claim you were arguing against.)
I’m saying that in actuality, you won’t be able to see any damage if somebody drank a beer once, because there isn’t any.
Which, again, is not a claim that was ever made in the article. You are literally making things up and arguing against your own made up arguments, and framing it as if the article originally made them. No where in the article does it say that.
It's also weird that you would have a such a vehement reaction towards the quote
"recent research indicating that any level of alcohol consumption may negatively affect health"
to the point of making things up. How on earth is such a statement even at all remotely controversial?
Comments
The claim that "any amount may have negative effects" (in the article) is NOT the same as the claim that "you can detect if I had a single drop 20 years ago" (the claim you were arguing against.)
“May have”, sure. Everything “may have” negative effects.
I’m saying that in actuality, you won’t be able to see any damage if somebody drank a beer once, because there isn’t any.
Which, again, is not a claim that was ever made in the article. You are literally making things up and arguing against your own made up arguments, and framing it as if the article originally made them. No where in the article does it say that.
It's also weird that you would have a such a vehement reaction towards the quote
to the point of making things up. How on earth is such a statement even at all remotely controversial?