5 Democrats are cosponsors:

• Josh Gottheimer - NJ-5
• Jared Moskowitz - FLA-23
• Joseph Morrell - NY-25
• Donald Davis - NC-1
• Laura Gillen - NY-4

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/867/all-info

The greatest trickery they have is that it doesn't matter whether you criticize the apartheid state or Zionism. They'll directly consider you anti-semitic.

• In 2023, US have already passed a resolution (H.Res. 894) to equate "Anti-Zionism as Anti-Semitism".

• Slaves :- How do we get rid of this oppressive system of slavery?
• Lemmy world mods :- Slaves should utilise non-violent methods, like giving roses, hugging each other and sharing smootches with their owners and govt members. This will end slavery.

Noted. Thanks for pointing it out, I would be much more considerate in the future.

The question was about behavior. Imagine if there are 4 children - Voting Blue kills 2 children and voting Red kills 3 children. By voting Blue - we've saved 1 child and start celebrating. The problem here is the behavior of cheering such leadership, by cheering we're burying the core problem of "Child killing" and erasing the acknowledgement of "No child should be killed" ideal from the mind of the masses.

There's no anti-semetism in those words, Palestinians include Muslims and Jews who lived there for centuries. The problem is europeans persecuted immigrants who were forced upon Palestinians. True Justice would be to divide Germany (biggest perpetrator) into two parts to give rise of Jewish state. Why would Palestinians take the brunt of Europe's crime?

We'll be careful with our color choices in the future memes.

There are party loyalists out there. Unfortunately, they constitute the majority of population and they vote and decide who governs you. Can't neglect these unconscious/unaware populace.

If that is so then they are quite successful. Dems supporters are busy on green pond and WH Ufc while core problems like war, genocide, oligarchy, ICE, Epstein files have taken a backseat.

Thanks for acknowledging the inconsistencies within social values and showing optimism for the ideal outcome.

Lots of things are missing here, First terrorists separated the males from females, checked their circumcision, forced them to recite Kalma (Islamic prayer) before shooting the non-muslim tourists. (Source: videos of distressed family members from the incident site). The only muslim killed in this was a brave local who tried to snatch the gun from a terrorist. Yesterday, Muslims protested against terrorism with black bands after Friday's prayers across the nation (including Kashmir). Revenge against Kashmiris is also made up, when every media is putting blame over Pakistan and showing the humanitarian works of Kashmiris in helping the tourists and providing necessities like food and water. The terrorists' goal was to create separation between the two religions which has at large failed.

I have no mischievous intent against any group. I just saw some moral inconsistency. So I though let's AskLemmy about their opinion on this topic. People are answering pretty rationally and are not just outright dismissive.

There's social persuation going on against people who don't eat sandwitches - Some are saying "They don't eat sandwitches because they've never eaten the right one", Other are insisting that "They need to force fed", Cultists are forcing that "Refusing to eat sandwitches is a disorder/disease". Wide acceptance is lacking that there can be people who are beyond sandwitches.

I am sorry for making you feel this way.

It all happened two weeks ago, I didn't talk to him for whole day after that conversation. Next day, things eased off and everything returned to normal but we never talked about that conversation ever again. I don't think bringing that up is necessary. There are several other ways to express that my love and respect for him has increased even more.

•Sky News : “But you do admit, you do admit sir, that Pakistan has had a long history of backing and supporting and training and funding these terrorist organizations?”

•Pakistan Def. Minister : “Well, we have been doing this dirty work for United States for 3 decades.”

https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/1915547701644763166

You can't compare living animals with inanimate objects. "Animals can't consent" is a strong argument given against zoophilia. I want you look at the social inconsistent values; where killing animal without their consent is accepted but copulating with animal is condemned by giving the argument that "Animals can't consent". Here the consent is inconsistent and getting used for convenience. [Necrophilia is also condemned on the basis of corpses' inability to consent.]

"Animals can't consent" is one of the strongest arguments given against zoophilia. Any conditioned trickery by a human would get considered as sexual misconduct.

Wise choice, Mr. Schopenhauer.

Thanks for taking this question in purely analytical manner and questioning the conflicting social values. There are many comments here which tries to answer the question but get engaged into sense of social shame and prejudice rather than focusing into the logical consistency with given premise.