> "and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols" ... "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside t

> "and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols" ... "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal" This is circular and I think not very well thought out. Declaring something criminal is "answering arguments by the use of ... pistols", just as he is railing against in the same paragraph. Who defines tolerance and intolerance? Who gets to draw the line? I think being tolerant necessarily means tolerating the intolerant, and I think people arguing otherwise are being the very intolerant they are trying to defeat. You can't be tolerant sometimes, intolerant others, and then hold an olive branch high above your head, claiming to be tolerant. It doesn't work that way, in the same way that you can't claim to be a pacifist if you support pacifism sometimes, and violence others. It just is a false statement.