Pretty it up however you like choirboy, forcing a group to ditch their culture to leave the country or forcibly assimilate umder pain of violence, death and torture is is ethnic cleansing. You're just as anti semitic as your pal from reddit, you're probably the same guy but with a different profile.
No I am not anti semitic because I don’t believe in persecuting Jews except for specific situations when it is neccesary like the Spanish Inquisition and I do not think that they are the masterminds behind the global conspiracy.
This reminds me of something a friend of mine liked to say. "If you're in favor of free speech, except in certain situations, then you're not really in favor of free speech. You just have your own ideas of when it should be restricted." If you're against persecuting Jews, except in certain situations, then you're not against persecuting Jews, Jacob. You just have your own ideas of when they should be persecuted. You're in favor.
Well, in fairness on the free speech point, there are situations in which it is restricted, even in the most libertarian speech regimes: libel, slander, direct threats of violence, and--the big one--copyright.
Which is still not truly free speech. It's freer speech, but it's not free speech. For the record, I'm not a hyperlibertarian myself - I do feel like there should be necessary restrictions on what people are and are not allowed to say. But from a technical standpoint, if you favor any restrictions on speech, you're not really "for free speech".
I thought about my views on this, and I realized that it is unlikely for the states to ratify an amendment that amends the first amendment meaning that it is unlikely that Jehovah’s Witnesses will be banned in the US. However when the true heir is put on the throne of England, England will become an absolute monarchy there, so there will be restrictions on speech there and Jehovah’s Witnesses will be banned for being unpatriotic.
So it means that I support free speech in America but not in England.
