If the social benefits to humanity outweighed the harm to animals? I'm not saying that's true, but if it were that would for me be a reason.

What I said was:
> Absolute nonsense from beginning to end. It makes the a priori assumption that harming animals is a moral issue, and never questions that position.

Now I'm not saying there isn't a moral argument to be made, just that assuming it without question is not good philosophy.

Again, that is my personal view of how a non-absolute morality could be derived, based on the concept of a 'common good' with expanding circles of commonality. I am sure there are alternative options, and am happy to consider them. What I'm not willing to consider is an imposed morality from 'above'.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying, which isn't this. The concept of the 'common good' is a perfectly valid basis for a moral perspective. The issue is around what counts as 'common', who (or what) is in the community. What you are suggesting is no morality at all. I think that's a stupid position to adopt.

Indeed, but their welfare does not trump other issues.

Animals form part of the biosphere.

That's very much not what I said. In my opinion, ethics should be based on the ways to act which are best for, in descending order, the social group, society at large, humanity, the biosphere and the universe as a whole. There will be competing interests here, of course, and for me that is the valid area for ethical debate.

Some of the 'arguments' vegans come up with suggest you could be wrong.

Absolutely I'm arguing there is no objective morality unless you believe in a transcendent Deity who defines such a morality. I don't.

So if we decide to become vegetarian, we risk losing that ability?

No, my point is that the ethics we choose should make allowance for who we are and where we come from. The idea that there is some absolute ethics imposed from above is anathema to me.

But without that process, there would be no ability to understand and consider ethics.

Is it not the case that the reason that we as a species developed our large brain and reasoning faculties is because we ate meat?

Ugh!

> Is the question of harming animals anything but an ethical question? What else would it be?

That sounds like the same sort of reasoning that suggests that carnivores should be genetically modified to be herbivores. Which is nonsense. Nature has made us what we are. I believe that to be a justification for being that way.

> Also, the article doesn't actually claim that lab grown meat is being developed for "utilitarian reasons".

The paper says:
> The moral problem stems from the fact that we will likely switch over to lab-grown meat because it is cheap, or thanks to its benefits for human health or the environment. That is, we will do it for our own sake and not for the sake of animals.

Did you read the paper?

Absolute nonsense from beginning to end. It makes the a priori assumption that harming animals is a moral issue, and never questions that position. Given that we evolved from omnivorous predecessor species this is not a strong position to adopt.

Even if we accept that inflicting harm on animals is wrong, the suggestion that lab-grown meat is being developed for purely utilitarian reasons is nonsense, and again no justification is given for this assumption.

I'm 67, jaded by years of excess, and morbidly obese..

You think psychedelics are variable? Try some anticholinergic deliriants some time (or perhaps not..). Pure guessworks for the effects from a slightly dry mouth to weeks of sheer madness.

Funnily enough I've never bought shrooms from a dealer. They grow on the hills around here (p. semilanceata, liberty caps) so I know what I'm taking. Still quite variable, but within limits. I wouldn't trust a dealer.

Nonsense. OP himself said he was used to higher doses. Personally I'll take ten times that, and have never had a bad trip. Also, the delay before onset of the bad trip isn't what I'd expect from shrooms as opposed to something 'treated' with pcp or who knows what to make it more potent.

OP says this was a low dose..

Tell your sister what you did and apologize to her - it was wrong to hack her account. Then take it no further, and make sure she realizes that you won't tell anyone. She must deal with it as best she can, any further interference from you would just make things worse.

I don't know what you took, but normal shrooms would not do that to you. Timescales and effects don't add up. I'd avoid the guy who sold you those.

Dreadful example of excluded middle here. To say 'science' is perfect and 'pseudoscience' is completely wrong is reductionist in the extreme. And the consequence of that reductionism is to create false dichotomies between peoples and groups, when a search for common ground would be a much more fruitful strategy for all concerned.