Here's an example:
1.) Now, without additional legislation and strong-armed tactics, it is far less possible for that to become a common viewpoint (the one you yourself hold about people with disabilities).
2.) You promote a notion that people with disabilities aren't a certain way.
3.) I guarantee you that is the result of numerous court decisions, legislation, regulation, desegregation, and employment protections.
4.) Without strong-arming the public
5.) you have a more difficult time swaying the opinion of the masses.
1.) its not strong arm its simply protecting rights and facts, the view point is meaningless to the law and rights
2.) no, "i" dont facts and rights simply do, reality and truth does
3.) no its just facts and reality, it is a fact people with disabilities dont just sit in a corner and drool and that fact would be true without protecting their rights but luckily we do
4.) again theres no strong arming unless you think protecting rights is strong arming and then if thats the case then the only logical thing to do is to not have rights cant have it both ways
5.) opinions dont matter to facts
take interracial marriage, 80+% of people had the opinion it was wrong and should be illegal when government started protecting that right, the majority didnt start thinking it was right until the 90s, 30 years later.
if so called strong arming takes 30 years i dont see whats strong about it, also i do agree the argument can be made that without the government protecting those rights it probably would have took longer but again peoples uneducated wrong opinions dont matter to facts and rights.
and again "ACCEPTANCE" still factually is not "FORCED" its still legal to personally not accept it
whats the alternative? how do we protect rights without laws?
like i said if you can give me one example of forced personal acceptance ill buy it, but one doesnt exists because there is no force of acceptance