But I do have far greater historical knowlege. I've demonstrated that already by repeatedly roundly refuting things that you have been sure are true, but can't actually back up with anything. You've presented cultural myths and I've presented data and expert opinion that punches all kinds of holes in those myths. And, I'm drawing on the knowlege of dozens if not hundreds of experts with cutting edge science - not my own ideas (and not tired old scenarios that don't hold water).
Of course not everyone agrees, because that is the nature of things, but mostly those people are also relying on dominance hierarchy indoctrination and not what the actual facts support. As just one example, the myth that humans are inherently violent - even though we have proof from a variety of disciplines that this is not remotely true. Certainly, humans are violent under certain conditions, but we also know that all mammals avoid violence and particularly deadly violence if at all possible (except under rare and particular circumstances).
We know that killing is difficult for most humans, in that they have to be indoctrinated into it in order to become effective soldiers, and even then, there are countless stories of the ways that even soldiers in wartime do things to avoid killing. “The majority of soldiers, although well-armed, never kills. During World War II, only one out of every five American soldiers actually fired at the enemy. Similarly, it has been calculated that during the Vietnam War, American soldiers fired over 50,000 bullets for every enemy soldier killed. Most bullets ended up in the air.”
I'm interested in the truth (or at least the best approximation we can get to it) not in stories that serve an agenda but don't really stand up to scrutiny. You can be defensive about that because it challenges what you thought you knew, but it doesn't change things. Personally, I'm interesting in learning, whether it challenges my preconceived notions or not.
The way we make sense of most things in the world is we look at them from a variety of perspectives and draw a conclusion about what the evidence supports. That's how 97% of the world's climate scientists have come to believe that climate change/global warming is a severe man-made threats. The fact that it's not spelled out in black and white or that 3% of the scientists don't agree doesn't matter to me (and shouldn't matter to you). The overwhelming evidence and the expert consensus around that plus my educated and informed opinon of what the facts convey is enough for me. If you want to pretend that's insufficient, well, that's up to you, but it's a ploy so that you don't have to admit that the way you thought that the world was and worked has been conviningly demonstrated to you to be off base.
I don't know if you looked at my profile at all but my descriptor says that I dispell cultural myths with research driven stories. Being an iconclast is sort of my jam. Most of what we are taught is lies. You haven't actually refuted anything that I've said and I have refuted pretty much everything that you have asserted, with citations from experts. If you want to join the ranks of the men that I talk to nearly every day who think that's a sufficient debate- based on their say-so and just what they are sure they know without being able to actually back it up, then be my guest, but it's kind of lame. I present a compelling research driven story and you present unsubstantiated cultural myths. OK, but really?