Is alcohol really the worst drug?

Again summarized and abbreviated:

I said (see first comment) that pure alcohol is actually more harmful than pure heroin.

You respond aggressively to the fact that this statement is wrong as there is no pure heroin.

Find the mistake. That is exactly what a sophistic argument is about by definition, more precisely a straw man argument or Red Herring.

You’re not referring to my statement in your criticism. It is clear that there is almost no pure heroin and therefore (!) I put the discrepancy here – it is about hundreds of thousands of lives.

That’s what you’ve been doing. You don’t argue against me, but against a statement you’d like me to represent. I don’t. Argument either against what I really represent or let the accusations be. Otherwise you’ll waste our two lives here.

Without argument and reference to my statement, your accusation is untenable. As you want.

I’m getting the straw man arguments here. Tell me in detail, including quote from my particular statement, what exactly is wrong.

My statement is, and I wrote this in the comments in detail once again:

My “thesis” (objective fact) is as from the beginning: as pure neurotoxin, hepatotoxin, cytotoxin and carcinogen 1. Grades also have a drop of alcohol harmful poisoning effect. As the body has a certain ability to regenerate, these harmful effects for us at a small dose do not necessarily manifest themselves as damage. Both sentence 1 and sentence 2 are fact. And I like to repeat it again and again.

And the comparison with heroin refers to

if it is not a streetheroin but pure heroin

A pure alcohol compared to pure heroin.

So what exactly is wrong?

This is about the general poison effect, as you can see, I have written everything more specifically into the clamp behind it. When alcohol is in the nerve cell or in the synaptic gap, it acts on very many different receptors, among them most prominently the effect as GABA agonist and as glutamate antagonist. And we already have the effect of a classic synapsen poison. Toxic effect. That’s enough a drop and less. In addition, the irritating effect on the intestinal epithelium and the hepatotoxic effect on the liver cells occurs. And since he is a first-grade carcinogen, just like asbestos or (radioactive) radiation, he immediately has destructive effect on the DNA. To what extent this effect is reparable or at some point also actually triggers cell growth is something completely different, that is what one would consider with studies. But that he is already toxic and harmful to inheritance is out of question.

If that were true, it would not be allowed as a daily consumption toddlers.

No, because, as I said, the dose comes to whether the damage is manifesting at all. And this is usually not the case with these quantities. Fortunately, the body has certain (big) regeneration capacity.

Yes, as seen in Germany, infants already get poison. That’s it. The difference is the dose, because the toxicity effect is so low at this dose that no damage manifests. But that this dose is already poisonous, because alcohol is just a poison, is a fact.

It is enough once I argue to correct your false statements!

Amusing. You first use a straw man’s argument and then justify your missing counter arguments with your argument against the straw man. This is not an argument. That’s embarrassment, by definition.

The rest of your commentary, along with the loving Ad Hominems, will also automatically fall.

Either you recognize my authentic statement instead of the straw man, as usual in a civilized truth-oriented discussion, and therefore automatically accept the facts, or you stay with your straw man’s argument and refute your accusation on account of inadmissible argumentation technology itself. I can wait.

Why is there no argument? Could it be that there was no more than a straw man’s argument behind your charges? A comment can’t be any more content.

I’m not repeating anything from straw men!

You also wrote this in your last comment and repeat your straw man’s argument right at the end of this comment. Who are you talking about?

You have already refuted your false theses yourself!

I didn’t disprove anything, and you know very well. You fight against windmills, while facts remain.

Remember what you wrote a few minutes ago?

So? What insult should that have been?

There aren’t straw men who find your nonsense. Healthy human understanding and scientific facts are sufficient for this.

So, and why do you keep repeating the same straw man? – Also at the end of this comment.

Stop beating straw men and refer to the thesis that I have written on your own request before 4 comments. These are the scientific facts.

What about “nonsense”?

What insults? The only one of us who debats uncle is you.

The fact is and remains that not every drop of alcohol leads to damage!

So the straw man had to come back.

And I repeat both my statement and the last paragraph. But you already know that. Do you want to keep trying to deny reality?

There. My “thesis” (objective fact) is as from the beginning: as pure neurotoxin, hepatotoxin, cytotoxin and carcinogen 1. Grades also have a drop of alcohol harmful poisoning effect. As the body has a certain ability to regenerate, these harmful effects for us at a small dose do not necessarily manifest themselves as damage. Both sentence 1 and sentence 2 are fact. And I like to repeat it again and again.

You can yell as loud as “nonsense, garbage etc.” or use straw men. This is reality.

I think you should read more. Every drop of alcohol damages. The difference lies in the effect and type of damage. I’m not clearing anything, my initial statement remains a fact.

This is about the general poison effect, as you can see, I have written everything more specifically into the clamp behind it. When alcohol is in the nerve cell or in the synaptic gap, it acts on very many different receptors, among them most prominently the effect as GABA agonist and as glutamate antagonist. And we already have the effect of a classic synapsen poison. Toxic effect. That’s enough a drop and less. In addition, the irritating effect on the intestinal epithelium and the hepatotoxic effect on the liver cells occurs. And since he is a first-grade carcinogen, just like asbestos or (radioactive) radiation, he immediately has destructive effect on the DNA. To what extent this effect is reparable or at some point also actually triggers cell growth is something completely different, that is what one would consider with studies. But that he is already toxic and harmful to inheritance is out of question.

If that were true, it would not be allowed as a daily consumption toddlers.

No, because, as I said, the dose comes to whether the damage is manifesting at all. And this is usually not the case with these quantities. Fortunately, the body has certain (big) regeneration capacity.

Yes, as seen in Germany, infants already get poison. That’s it. The difference is the dose, because the toxicity effect is so low at this dose that no damage manifests. But that this dose is already poisonous, because alcohol is just a poison, is a fact.

It is enough once I argue to correct your false statements!

Amusing. You first use a straw man’s argument and then justify your missing counter arguments with your argument against the straw man. This is not an argument. That’s embarrassment, by definition.

The rest of your commentary, along with the loving Ad Hominems, will also automatically fall.

Either you recognize my authentic statement instead of the straw man, as usual in a civilized truth-oriented discussion, and therefore automatically accept the facts, or you stay with your straw man’s argument and refute your accusation on account of inadmissible argumentation technology itself. I can wait.

Why is there no argument? Could it be that there was no more than a straw man’s argument behind your charges? A comment can’t be any more content.

I’m not repeating anything from straw men!

You also wrote this in your last comment and repeat your straw man’s argument right at the end of this comment. Who are you talking about?

You have already refuted your false theses yourself!

I didn’t disprove anything, and you know very well. You fight against windmills, while facts remain.

Remember what you wrote a few minutes ago?

So? What insult should that have been?

There aren’t straw men who find your nonsense. Healthy human understanding and scientific facts are sufficient for this.

So, and why do you keep repeating the same straw man?

Stop beating straw men and refer to the thesis that I have written on your own request before 4 comments. These are the scientific facts.

What about “nonsense”?

What insults? The only one of us who debats uncle is you.

The fact is and remains that not every drop of alcohol leads to damage!

So the straw man had to come back.

And I repeat both my statement and the last paragraph. But you already know that. Do you want to keep trying to deny reality?

There. My “thesis” (objective fact) is as from the beginning: as pure neurotoxin, hepatotoxin, cytotoxin and carcinogen 1. Grades also have a drop of alcohol harmful poisoning effect. As the body has a certain ability to regenerate, these harmful effects for us at a small dose do not necessarily manifest themselves as damage. Both sentence 1 and sentence 2 are fact. And I like to repeat it again and again.

You can yell as loud as “nonsense, garbage etc.” or use straw men. This is reality.

I think you should read more.Every drop of alcohol damages.The difference lies in the effect and type of damage. I’m not clearing anything, my initial statement remains a fact.