Intolerance, to my mind, is how to know and to impose its view to others. To be proud of it and to believe only in this.

Reply to intolerance by intolerance is a human reflex; someone who’s feel offended or insulted will want to defend itself in the same way. It’s a kind of pride. However, it’s an endless circle because those who insult will be insulted in his turn and will want to reciprocate that at those who was originally the victim, by idea of revenge. For example we can take the story of this man who was an homosexual ADIS victim, rejected by people and who wanted to revenge himself by trying to infect as many people as he can, just to show them how it feels to suffer the intolerance they used. But, exactly, if people are able to do that, how far will be the limits of intolerance? They were repulsed each time there is an illiberal response to intolerance. Indeed, a man who will suffer the intolerance will want to subject to the other, the other will make the first stand, by revenge. Back to sender. This is the principle of the Talion law : “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth”. A reciprocal punishment to the crime. We could, from there, whether the death penalty is a way to respond to intolerance with intolerance, or in this case to abolish by the death of the killer; this which can means the end of the intolerance. Or, instead of, strengthening it by feeding a desire for revenge against the killer of the man who was condemned, just for the simple criminal justice. This is another reflection which leads to the vicious circle. So, I think that trying to fight intolerance is a losing war or an endless war. Unless one of two camps raises the white flag and agreed to surrender and end the immoral fight. However, the winner could take this opportunity to strengthen its offense, and afford even more intolerance. I think that fight intolerance by intolerance is a lost cause, a way of inflaming the conflict and never leave it. There would be no limits to this