Answer: It is my claim that disability prejudice has been viewed through the lens of prejudices such as anti-Semitism, racism, feminism and homophobia – intolerances that may not be pre-existing, but have been generally recognized and theorized earlier in time.
Explanation:
In many ways, this collection of papers on the burgeoning field of national, regional and international instruments directed towards the redress of disability discrimination is really about the existence of disability prejudice. Most of the papers focus on practical or theoretical issues raised by the laws themselves, or the jurisprudential, social and political choices that shape the drafting and enactment of laws. Nonetheless, every paper is built on the conviction that disability prejudice is a fundamental force behind the exclusion of people with disabilities from a myriad of social and economic opportunities, and one author in particular writes in detail about the personal and systemic consequences of persistent disability prejudice and stereotypes
Answer:
Someone who doesnt try to one up you
Explanation:
someone who doesnt judge you, helps you, cares for you, ect.
Answer:
Stanley wished that everything that happened in his life was different. This compares with the words "if only, if only", because it reflects Stanley's thinking thinking "If only things were different."
Explanation:
Stanley has a curse that damages his life and makes him go through very bad situations in his life. He would very much like his life to have been different, that the experiences he had had been different. For this reason, Stanley can live in a constant feeling of projection where he thinks "if only my life were different, if only things had happened differently." This relates entirely to the song sung by Sarah, especially the words "if only, if only".
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
Answer:
it convinces Orpheus that he has to fight for his love.
Explanation:
