… and then there are the reasons J.S.Mill gives. By permitting diverse views we stand a better chance of finding truth, and even if the opinion is in error, our grasp of the truth will be strengthened by confronting that error.

Oh. Well one obvious reason we should tolerate diverse opinions is that it tends to result in less violence and killing, all else being equal. Then there is the intrinsic good of expanding the scope of individual freedom. Both of these have limitations, of course. …

Sorry - I have lost track of the context for your question - why what?

Thanks!

Does he? Honestly, I really couldn’t care less who says what, since I’m more concerned with whether claims are true. And lastly, thank you! For tolerating my views and engaging me in civil discussion. I hope you won’t mind me following you. I’m listening to a talk on the Graeber book. Fascinating!

True. Back in the day, yes. They started a race and fairly soon they were losing it - do you have any insight as to why they could not keep up with the US?

When Europeans came to the Americas they swept aside whatever stood in their way. They had the power and the greed (and sometimes the religious zeal).

What you say seems basically true to me (the doctrine of discovery?). I would point out that common land ownership was commonplace in Europe, so it “not being logical” isn’t quite accurate. The basic idea (from Locke) was that if land is not farmed it does not belong to anyone, so may be taken. …

I don’t think claiming it is wrong is evidence that it is wrong. I can see that many people disagree with what (they think) I am saying. Even if everyone disagrees with me, that is still not evidence (its just an appeal to popularity fallacy). And who is being ideological? What ideology?

Humans. Isn’t that obvious?