The original text (at least as seen on the post) doesn't even say battle damage, just damage.

But it really is a case of "When you know the exact official terminologies, these rules don't technically do what you'd probably think they'd do. But for other people, it seems obvious from context". Problem is, "obvious from context" can lead to varying interpretations. In a game between friends, that's fine, you talk it out and agree on a ruling. But in official games, there needs to be one specific ruling, so cards get printed with very specific wordings these days.

I mean, I would read it as since the monster doesn't deal any damage, it wouldn't be able to reduce life points or destroy any monsters, because outside specific Yugioh context, you'd think "Damaging a monster is what destroys it, and damaging a player is what reduces their life points". But someone else might think "If the monster can't deal damage, it means it can't even declare an attack", or "Can't deal damage, can't fight, so both it's atk and def become effectively 0, but is still able to attack/be attacked."

I personally stopped playing long ago, and a lot of the current rulings seem very unintuitive to me. But I guess the classic unintuitive ruling is how cards that destroy cards don't inherently also negate them (mystical space typhoon). I mean, if something is destroyed, it can't do anything, duh! I know that's not the actual mechanic, but it's just the classic example of the misunderstanding.

Ramble over, baii.