Written by
Here's a little logic puzzle. Say you've got Person A, Person B, and Person C.
Person A hates Person C, but not because of anything Person C did. Person A just hates something intrinsic to Person C. Perhaps it's skin color, the shape of the eyes, or the way the letter C curves from top to bottom. It doesn't matter. Whatever it is, Person C has no choice in the matter, and changing it is impossible.
Person B thinks Person A is acting in an illogical, irrational way. Person A says, "Why hate C for what can't be changed?" Person B protests against Person A for being intolerant.
Person A counters with claims that Person B is actually the one being intolerant, because Person B doesn't tolerate Person A's beliefs.
So who is actually being intolerant? Does Person A have a valid point? And if Person B acquiesces to Person A, does that make Person B intolerant of Person C?
I know where my predilections lie in this question, but I'm curious about how other people think.