In response to Steve Ryburn's opinion piece "Balance?" in the Aug. 8 edition of New Times, it seems he is agreeable to everyone's opinion as long as they are consistent with his. Not only does he not like those opposing opinions, but wants them silenced. Mr. Ryburn does not like Al Fonzi's or John Donegan's opinions and as such he wants their articles removed from New Times.
It appears he and many others have such a low confidence in their convictions that those convictions cannot stand up against any opposing point of view. They therefore must have the opposition silenced.
It seems that when many liberals do not agree with what is said or printed, they want the person saying or writing their opinions silenced, shouted down, or removed from the air waves or newspaper. It also seems that when many conservatives disagree with what is said or printed, they just change the channel or don't read the article. Is that because the liberals have such low confidence in their convictions?
A recent incident at a major university presents a good example. The liberals on campus, in protesting some incident or cause, held a fasting sit-in on campus. The conservatives then on the same day held a barbecue directly adjacent to the fasting students. The conservatives did not interfere with or otherwise disrupt the fasting students. It is not difficult to determine who won that fasting versus food debate.