while I get what you are trying to say; I also believe that from a harm reduction standpoint; holytoast is not wrong to speak up against the advise to simply "take more".
Of course. I also don't believe he's wrong. I think
Holy Toast's advice is more responsible than JDilla's advice. But the degree to which a suggestion is responsible is not the same as or related to the degree to which that suggestion is good, bad, apposite, well-taken, or "terrible" advice. Advice should be, I think, deemed good or bad based on how practical and apropos it is. Advice that is conscionable, altruistic, philanthropic, or virtuous is good insofar as "good" is measured or defined in terms of those qualities. However, while I find those qualities desirable, they don't necessarily make an answer good or bad.
It's not whether
Holy Toast is wrong, but rather if the suggestion posited by
JDilla is terrible. That is the issue I had intended to speak to with my comment.
If the OP is having a hard time feeling comfortable at a low dose (hence forcing the trip to end via meditation) then taking enough to get past the point of suppression could end very badly, especialy if the user has grown accustomed to being able to snuff out a bad experience. This will amplify the terror that people normaly experience when faced with a loss of control.
Indeed. I think your point is well-advised and commendable. But I feel it's necessary to recapitulate what I had previously mentioned inasmuch as I feel it's necessary to indict a response at all. The issue is, as I intended it, not what is or is not estimable or responsible, but what is or can rationally be said or argued to be a cogent, logically sound, feasible, effective, and topically pertinent answer (in the same way that, for example, a prescription for some pharmaceutical is good if it addresses, treats, or assuages the symptoms of the issue for which it was prescribed or developed/intended for more efficiently than might an alternative pharmaceutical, rather than if the prescribed pharmaceutical is good in the sense that it possesses the least possibility of causing deleterious sequelae for its user, regardless of its efficacy or applicability in the treatment of the patient's medical condition for which it was prescribed).
But as I had succinctly mentioned in the peroration of my initial post, the interpretation of the question is what determines if responsible advice is good advice (not by virtue of its responsible nature, but rather its coincidentally greater effectiveness and topicality to the question it's trying to resolve—that is to say, whether it addresses the issues and meets the criteria delineated in the question).
If a person is seeking the most effective and least potentially harmful advice, then the advice can be said to be good or bad based on its ability or inability to meet these criteria. However if safety or harm is not a stipulation or condition of the question, then a given answer cannot be justified as better than another based on it meeting these unstated conditions and the preference of such an answer over another cannot be logically accounted for in terms of these criteria since they (the criteria) weren't included in the question being addressed.
Also it's not like JDilla gave any in site as to why this would be a good idea..
But dilating on the insight of one's answer or the reason one's answer may be a good idea apparently wasn't a sort of sine qua non or condition of any appreciable import or relevance to the OP's inquiry, otherwise the OP would not have omitted its inclusion in his opening comment. Because this wasn't a condition stated in the OP, whether a given answer meets this condition cannot be appropriately used as a barometer or gauge with which to measure how good or bad a given answer is.
