> The tone is your own projection

Tone, as I suspect both of us know very well, is used in internet parlance in the spirit of implicit uncertainty. Note also I said "The ~tone of your statement", the "~" was intended to explicitly communicate uncertainty.

> as is the assertion that I presented an opinion as fact. I don't see evidence for those two things. Now, you're presenting your own opinion as fact.

Am I? I don't think I am.

Your words:

"Combining psychedelics with meditation opens the very real risk of conditioning one's meditation practice to require psychedelics to have any efficacy."

I find this somewhat problematic, but the explicit usage of the word risk denotes uncertainty of outcome.

"When not taking psychedelics and meditating one will attempt to re-create or grasp after the pleasant sensations and thoughts previously experienced, which severs one from looking into the present moment as it is."

Here I see no uncertainty, and it sure doesn't sound like "just an anecdote". What bothers me in general about these types of comments is that they are (at least) suggestive of a certain course of action, with poor supporting evidence.

> As for the following disingenuity: "the complete lack of any information existing within the current comprehensive knowledge of mankind itself," I pointed you to shroomery.org where you can find people's attitudes towards meditation and psychedelics and a cross section thereof that would corroborate my initial statements.

"Take a look at shroomery.org for a large group of people's attitude towards psychedelics and meditation, larger than n=39" isn't much better proof than "google it". Shroomery.org certainly contains some information on people's attitudes towards psychedelics and meditation, but this is not the same thing as information that proves your thesis. Does shroomery.org even contain a substantial number of reports that corroborate your statements? If so, is this the majority sentiment, or more of an outlier? Are these and other questions relevant when passing out advice? Should I and all other readers of your advice take it as true, unless we are willing to go out and locate refutations? Is this how epistemology works?

> It would be your own shortsightedness to not include these first hand reports within the "current comprehensive knowledge of mankind."

Of course, all available information should be considered.

My comment was:

> The ~tone of your statement combined with the complete lack of any information (in the message, or indeed existing within the current comprehensive knowledge of mankind itself) regarding the magnitude or likelihood of the negative event manifesting seems like an appropriate situation for dissection.

Can you tell me in some sort of quantitative detail, based on current comprehensive knowledge:

a) the likelihood of the negative event you describe manifesting

b) the magnitude of manifestation that can be expected

This would be useful for those considering psychedelic use in judging the amount of risk they are taking on.

Look, here's my point: I would like conversations to be fact and evidenced based. If one is passing out advice one way or the other, it seems fair that they should be both able and willing to demonstrate that the advice is sound, as well as be non-resistant to the idea that supporting evidence is a reasonable expectation. If you'd like to suggest a reasonable idea for consideration, or advise caution for specific reasons, I think my expectations would be far less stringent. And I care more about this particular topic than others because of the utility I see in these substances for moving towards a solution for many problems plaguing humanity right now, so I tend to be a tad disagreeable at times, no offense intended.

Full disclosure: this is my personal opinion on how issues such as this "should" be discussed. I expect it is at least somewhat imperfect, and you are not obligated in any way to agree or follow this advice. However, I expect myself or others will often disagree when comments run afoul of these principles.