I believe that some points are less important than others. Therefore, I disagree.
One reason I believe this is because if someone has done something wrong, they should have an opinion. This is because, if the criminal or wrong-doer has an opinion, normally it will be bias or an excuse. For example, in Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi might have an excuse or be bias towards herself which is nearly definatlly the case and it is because it is her army (the military) that are killing the Rohingha and she is too scared to admit it. She says it is terrorists and she is lying. This results in a big problem because her country has put faith in her since she brought democracy to Myanmar so they believe her more than a Rohingha. Her view is also quite racist and untrue. Therefor her opinion is not valid.
This shows that every perspective is not as important as it could be bias, racist or untrue.
My second reason is that if someone was involved but not as involved as others, there opinion is still valid but not as valid because it is the main people would be the ones the people were focusing on. For example, in Myanmar, the Buddhists’ perspective is not as valid because they are not the ones that are suffering. The main points of view would be the Rohingha because they are suffering and being taken away from their home and having nowhere to live when they haven’t even done anything wrong. The military should not have any opinion since they are not the ones suffering, they are the ones causing the suffering,
Therefore, the people who have been suffering’ pints are more valid