Because a conclusion is incorrect do not imply that everything that lead to this conclusion is incorrect.

First, your obviously struggle to convince people. So even if this is the only objective, we have to inform ourselves better to understand what we are missing. This is a better stand, but I think this is still an issue : we don’t really listen people if we think they are wrong.

If our stand is right, this is not an issue to try to prove it wrong. So let’s discuss in order to be proven that vaccines shall not be trusted. I mean, with reliable sources and shit. However personal experiences are reliable sources, but not as much as collective one which and not as scientific consensus.

And their is some serious concerns about vaccines : in Africa, some vaccines campaign was used to use people as test-subject, Falashas has been collectively sterilized. Those are not exception, coloniale and oppressive context regularly use health to justify oppression (on race, gender, sexual orientation or origin).

So if we took what seems obvious to us in order to help, we may just reproduce what other people from the social origins use to oppress. In this conditions, the intuition to oppose to our speech is a good one. To do that, we have to value the knowledge of the exact same people that we may look down upon otherwise

In this case, minorities could learn by themselves, to under another leadership.

Do you know some leading organization that are let concerned people speak, organized and plan their actions, without someone that want to “help them to understand their own conditions” ? I know some organizations dike that, and their are out of the limelight by others. And those others are liberal that think their have the right knowledge and their are need … or vanguard leftists that think they have the right political thinking to analyse the situation.

In both case, they are acting like missionaries (and are their are some historical and sociological link).

You take one example (that is true), but this is not enough. White people could act under the control of the collective; with an imperative mandate of what that person shall talk to, or what line shall that person defend, without asking his mind

this deal is call : wedding

Monitor shall be in place where you can open the store and have no reflections. Otherwise this place make perfect sense

Are cuddle buddies friends or mates ?

If accessibility is a part of quality, I think we have not much to be proud We’re losing visually impaired people