Rhetorical Argument Exercise: Fill & Download for Free

Yes, if the campus is public. (If the campus is private, they have every right to insist that white supremacists not speak on campus. And they should. Because white supremacists attack the rights of people on the campus, lie and provide no rational reason to listen to them. And insofar as one must understand their arguments to be politically informed, that should be done in a context where their lies can be properly put into context rather than left unopposed). And if those people follow time, speech and manner regulations. And don’t threaten people, and don’t brandish weapons. And don’t do the things Nazis actually do when they “protest”.And there should also be free speech for anyone who disagrees with them. And wants to shout them down, as long as that doesn’t broach the line of criminal harassment.What that doesn’t have to mean is giving them a platform.Which is what the dishonest right have conflated.It’s not a violation of the free speech rights of Yiannopoulous, or Coulter, or Spencer, or anyone else who is either an outright white supremacist or funnels numbers to their ranks, to not be given time and space to lie to people.And let’s not pretend that doing so exposes people to new ideas.In fact, I’d argue that, on a very long list of people who should be listened to and have new ideas, jihadists and Islamists would be far higher than Coulter and her ilk. Anyone who’s remotely politically informed in the U.S. knows what Coulter has to say. Even if they haven’t heard it from her, they’ve heard it from Tucker Carlson, or some idiot on Twitter ranting about white genocide. And if someone isn’t politically informed, being exposed to Ann Coulter isn’t really an ideal starting point. An actual class may be preferable. (And colleges should be trying to make sure they are not admitting people who are massively misinformed citizens, and if they do admit them they should insure that their general education should encourage actual citizenship knowledge. Because politics informs all of our other human disciplines to some degree, and countless people from programmers handling Big Data to mental health professionals often balk at being told that their work has political implications, which shows that they’re actually not informed in their field).In contrast, I certainly have never heard a jihadist or Islamist give a talk. I would learn things about the Koran, about Islam, and about how dangerous people think. Information I can’t easily just get by buying their book or watching PragerU.Campuses also need to make sure that they recognize the impact of this kind of rhetoric when it must be allowed. They can inform students. They can insure that the speakers in question are not in a position where their rhetoric can be heard by people who just want to go to class. They can work with local groups to make sure that others are getting their own time to respond.And local campus groups should do something too. As Tim Wise pointed out:So instead of banning racist armbands, how much better might it be to see hundreds of Bellarmine students donning their own come spring: armbands saying things like: “Fuck Nazism,” “Fuck Racism,” or, for that matter, “Fuck You, Andrei” (hey free speech is free speech, after all)…Instead of banning hate speech, how much better might it be if everyone at Bellarmine who insists that they don’t agree with Chira, but only support his rights to free speech, isolated and ostracized him: refusing to speak to him, refusing to sit near him, refusing to associate with him in any way, shape or form. That too would be exercising free speech after all, since free speech also means the freedom not to speak, in this case, to a jackass like Andrei Chira.Instead of banning hate speech, how much better might it be for Bellarmine University to institutionalize practices and policies intended to screen out fascist bottom-feeders like Chira in the first place? After all, Bellarmine, like any college can establish any number of requirements for students seeking to gain admission, or staff seeking to work at the school, or faculty desiring a teaching gig. In addition to scholarly credentials, why not require applicants — whether for student slots or jobs — to explain how they intend to further the cause of racial diversity and equity at Bellarmine?(And for those of you wondering if that’s harassment: If saying “Fuck You, Andrei” is hate speech or harassment, why isn’t “Blacks should be driven out of the United States? or “Jews want to destroy us”? Why is it that it’s unacceptable when you insult, attack or threaten a person but not when you do it to a lot of people?)Imagine if every single libertarian on campus stood up every time there was a white supremacist who was speaking on campus. More realistically, imagine if libertarians were working with others on campus and, at least some of the time a white supremacist spoke, libertarians came out and said that police departments need to make sure to expel white supremacists because people who are ideologically incapable of doing their job fairly shouldn’t be employed by the government, pointed out how dangerous white supremacists’ economic theories are, and made fun of how these losers are criticizing Jewish businessmen who made money in the free market and pioneered so many benefits that the Nazis now act as if they deserve to benefit from like so many parasites?So, yes, Nazis do have free speech rights. And the rest of us have rights too. And let’s not kid ourselves that they’re actually asking just to be able to speak. They want a platform someone else is paying for, because they’re too mediocre to spread their ideas on their own. They want Twitter and Facebook and YouTube to host their ideas while they insult the vast majority of their fellow users, they want to benefit from the very culture of intellectual and academic freedom that they view as degenerate and want to destroy, and they’re only talking because they don’t have enough guns yet.I’ll close with Sartre’s wisdom on the topic:Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.Shouldn’t we insist that institutions of higher learning actually remember the lessons of history?

In fact, ‘free speech’ is again being attacked by the right-wing in the USA (and elsewhere) — not that the right have ever been defenders of ‘free speech’ (witness the reaction to those exercising ‘free speech’ at Trump rallies, who are attacked, and thrown out, the violence encouraged and applauded by the Sex-Pest-in-Chief himself) —, as part of a myth they recently re-invented called ‘Political Correctness’.Here is what I have written about that elsewhere:======================'Political Correctness' -- Invented By Right-Wing Snowflakes‘Political Correctness’ and analogous terms have been around for many centuries, but in the last hundred years 'PC' was 're-discovered' by the Nazis in order to attack prominent Jews, and then by Maoists and Stalinists in order to satirise and wrong foot their political opponents. For the latter it had no other meaning or purpose. Their use of 'PC' certainly wasn’t aimed at curtailing speech; if they wanted to do that they just arrested or summarily executed 'miscreants'. They certainly didn’t fool around with petty name-calling.The-interesting-evolution-of-political-correctness'PC' was resurrected again 25 or so years ago by a handful of right-wingers and Republican politicians. They did so because (i) They needed a new bogeyman to frighten the electorate after the fall of the Soviet Union (in 1991) and (ii) They also needed something with which they could label and attack the ideas and alleged ‘bullying tactics’ of ‘the left’ — especially in the USA and the UK — since the latter were supposedly in control of the Universities and Colleges and as a result were stifling ‘free speech’ —,but in support of which allegations these right-wingers offered precious little evidence.In fact, the opposite is the case:Conservatives-charge-that-universities-are-hotbeds-of-liberalism-they're-wrongHowever, many think 'PC' has something to do with avoiding offensive speech, or with being polite and respectful about what or how we say things to others. But, that is to misconstrue the nature of ‘PC’, which is a political, not a moral term that puts the onus on each of us as individuals to behave, or refrain from behaving, in certain ways. As I showed above, 'PC' was resurrected by right-wingers (not leftists or even liberals) nearly thirty years ago and formed an integral part of their 'theory' that there exists a left-wing ‘thought police’, a 'Marxist-Mafia', out there (somewhere...? -- under the bed perhaps?) that wields considerable social and political power, sufficient to stifle ‘free speech’ and the ‘search for truth’, not just in society at large but in most universities and city halls across the land -- and not only in the USA. Apparently, 'leftists' and 'liberals' use it to censor 'conservatives', even though the latter seem to be able to broadcast their message, such as it is, unhindered (on that, see here). So, as the phrase was originally intended by right-wingers -- a political term --, it doesn’t involve individuals being polite or respectful (we had those words in our vocabulary long before 'PC' was heard of!); it is a key component in right's ideological attack on the left, and has replaced the ‘red scare’ bogeyman of previous generations. It is, indeed, part of the paranoid and conspiratorial nature of right-wing politics across the planet.Unfortunately, many 'leftists' and liberals have bought into this fantasy (as has much of the media -- so much for the right not being able get their ideas across!), and, in their attempt to defend 'PC' (by which they mean to defend politeness and respect, as well as criticise racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and xenophobic speech), they have only succeeded in giving ground to the right by seeming to acknowledge that there is such a thing as 'PC', and that the 'left' is more than happy to own it. That has only emboldened the right since it has convinced them they were correct all along -- that there is a leftist conspiracy aimed at stopping them saying what they like. Witness the fact that right-wingers of every stripe constantly obsess on Quora over 'PC' (indeed, I have responded to close on a hundred questions on Quora about 'PC' from right-wingers in the last twelve months, and I am sure I have missed dozens more), blaming it, and 'libruls', for everything they think is wrong with the world. 'PC' is now right at the top of their hate list, even though they still offer zero evidence that there is this alleged 'left-wing' conspiracy to stop them saying whatever they like (which would, anyway, make them -- oops! --, victims!). Indeed, they have never actually been stopped from saying what they like (so long as it doesn't break the law), unlike the widespread censorship of the left. As I show below, right-wingers are the ones who are actually stifling free speech, and they have the money, power and influence to continue doing just that.This conservative fable was then spiced-up with fanciful notions and lurid tales about ‘Cultural Marxism’ (an idea they also pinched from the Nazis, who called it ‘Cultural Bolshevism’). This was a term they originally applied to the ideas promulgated by a group of Marxist theorists who happened to be Jews (the so-called ‘Frankfurt School’), but which phrase had dog-whistle, anti-Semitic overtones built into it — rather like the use "George Soros" also has for contemporary Republicans.That apple hasn't fallen far from the tree, has it?So, 'PC' was little more than a bogeyman thirty years ago, and that is still the case today.It has turned right-wingers into victims and easily offended, whiny little b*tches.Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy'Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for right-wingers who love to play the victimThe 'politically correct' controversyFar more sinister, however, is Conservative Correctness, which is no mere invention — try talking about ‘diversity’, 'sanctuary cities', ‘Black Lives Matter’, 'foetuses', 'a woman's right to choose', ‘multiculturalism’, ‘sensible gun restriction laws’, ‘African Americans’, 'BCE' instead of 'BC', 'Xmas' in place of 'Christmas' — or arguing that Antifa aren’t terrorists — etc., etc., to most talk radio hosts, or to Trump ideologues like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Tucker Carlson, and see how far you get. You will be shouted down, or, if you are in a Trump rally, thrown out.There are plenty more right-wing trigger-words listed here:Conservative CorrectnessAnd here is Steven Spalding's Quora answer, which traces conservative correctness back over seventy years, showing how it was used to censor the visual, written, performing and broadcast arts for several generations, deciding what we were allowed to read, see or hear -- so much for respecting 'free speech'!https://www.quora.com/I-believe-America-60-years-ago-i-e-1958-was-better-than-today-since-there-were-no-SJWs-and-political-correctness-How-can-we-return-the-U-S-to-those-good-old-times/answer/Steven-SpaldingAnd does anyone recall which party Senator Joseph McCarthy came from? Or which party has been at the forefront of trying to prevent evolution being taught in schools? Or, which administration has prevented all mention of global warming by certain government departments? [These are, of course, rhetorical questions!]https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/age-of-eisenhower/McCarthyism-red-scarehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/21/President-Trump-has-made-7645-false-or-misleading-claims-over-710-daysWhy Antifa Isn’t A Fascist Or A Terrorist OrganisationConservatives are the real campus thought police squashing academic freedomProfessors’ Growing Risk: Harassment for Things They Never Really Said'Hardcore American Patriot' Harim Uziel crashes Bernie Sanders speech days after declaring willingness to become a 'martyr'I went inside a right-wing safe space to find out the truth about universitiesThe Latest Attack in the Campaign to Silence Criticism of IsraelFree speech for all on campus! Unless you’re criticizing IsraelU.S. Lawmakers Seek to Criminally Outlaw Support for Boycott Campaign Against IsraelFour US states considering laws that challenge teaching of evolutionUS schools ban Darwin from classIn Florida, officials ban term 'climate change'Trump-administration-climate-change-banA-Texas-speech-pathologist-refused-to-sign-a-pro-Israel-oath-so-she-lost-her-jobThe above is now mandatory in many states.In which case, something (i.e., 'PC') that doesn’t exist, except in the fevered brains of right-wing nuts, can hardly curtail ‘free speech’, nor can ‘truth’ be sacrificed because of it. On the contrary, ‘free speech’ and ‘truth’ these days are being curtailed by ‘Conservative Correctness’ and The Liar-in-Chief in The White House.The above isn't confined to the USA, either. The 'independence' of universities has now been threatened in Hungary. The George Soros funded Central European University has been forced out of that country because of anti-Semitic pressure from the ultra-right-wing Orban regime:George-Soros-Central-European-University-Hungary-EvictedThe above attacks aren’t coming from ’the left’.And there are many more examples:The-Palestine-Exception==============================Whenever I make the above points, irate right-wingers (and others) pile into me with clichéd objections; either (i) they post abuse, (ii) they fail to respond to what I have argued or (iii) they just rehearse right-wing talking points. I will simply delete such comments and block the individual concerned without further warning.Some complain that this is censorship; it isn't. It is to remind such individuals that if they are abusive,they merely want to ‘score points’, or they can't be bothered to read and then reply to my actual arguments, they can't expect me to listen to them in return.Those who want to be civil and argue like grown-ups will, of course, be listened to.I don't issue second warnings.===========================From here:‘Political Correctness’OK, but what about all those ‘totalitarian’ Marxists who want to attack ‘free speech’ and impose their ideas on the USA (and elsewhere, too)? What about Antifa?First Antifa is largely composed of anarchists and anarcho-communists, not Marxists.Second — hard though this might be to believe given the anti-socialist propaganda we are fed every day — both Marxists and anarchists seek to create a society wherein there is more freedom that exists even in the USA (they just disagree over the way to achieve it). On that see here:Is_Antifa_a_fascist_organisation?Ah, but what about the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba (and other communist countries) where there was no ‘free speech’ and hundreds of millions were murdered?First, Marxism and communism parted company in Russia after Lenin died and the Stalinists seized power (which later spread into E Europe, China, N Korea, Cuba, etc.), so Marxism has no more to do with what happened in those countries than Jesus Christ had to do with what happened in the Spanish Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, the genocidal conquest of North, Central and South America, or the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland forty or more years ago.On that, see here:How-did-Karl-Marx-define-socialism/answer/Rosa-LichtensteinSecond, the figure bandied about by right-wingers concerning the number killed in communist countries depends on guesswork incorporated in the ‘Black Book of Communism’, and varies in direct proportion to how right-wing the tale-teller happens to be. So, on Quora, I have been fed the following figures for that ‘death toll’: ten million, twenty million, fifty million, eighty million, a hundred million, a hundred and twenty million, a hundred and fifty million, and finally, the grand-daddy: two hundred million. I have addressed this ever ballooning fairy tale (while not wanting to defend the manifest crimes of those anti-democratic, murderous and totalitarian communist regimes), here:Is-it-true-that-communism-has-killed-100-million-people/answer/Rosa-Lichtenstein

This question assumes the audience disagrees, so I'm going to assume y'all are all liberals. I am a former Democratic Party "operative," as I've been described, so let me deconstruct some of this for y'all.Every American citizen should study rhetoric as a foundation of good civics and media criticism. It's for your own sanity, protection -- and entertainment.When issues such as the fate of the Syrian refugees come up, as grim as the issue may be, and as dire as the condition of the refugee families, sometimes the only thing to do is to face the ridiculous state of our political system with humor.I propose a game. Let's call it,Logical Fallacy BINGOFor those of a more adventurous constitution, or perhaps those with more fear for the Constitution, you could easily convert this into a drinking game.What are some logical fallacies commonly seen in over the top political bloviating?Well here are a few! (Lots of duplicates, but some pretty amusing picks and explanations through here...)Top 10 Logical Fallacies in PoliticsHuffpo likes lists of them too:Logical FallaciesMore lists:How to Argue Rationally and Logically | The Art of Manlinessand backgrounders for silly season:A Guide To Spotting Pretzel Logic On The Campaign TrailEven the business world is wary:14 logical fallacies that keep showing up in bad argumentsSo why is it that these logical fallacies work so well? And since our root document comes from Aristotle in Ancient Greece -- why is it that they work so well for so long?Well, for one thing, the most insidious logical fallacy hits liberals just as much as anyone:http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/Confirmation Bias. The idea that if a statement fits with your preconceptions of moral truth and general apple-pie, you won't bother to fact check one iota of it.And beyond that, because people don't care about logic in political arguments. Not at first, anyway.I worked as a speechwriter and campaign manager in politics, as well as in volunteer roles at a county and state level, and as a consultant at a national level, and as a lobbyist.What I learned, apprenticing to some of the best minds in modern politics, including one of the wunderkind of Bill Clinton's presidential run, is that even the most intellectual of us (including me) does not react to political rhetoric with our logical faculties first. We react with our heart and our gut, and if we are so inclined, do some post-processing in the brain, and support our initial judgement with logic after we've made our decision with other parts of our anatomy.This is where we get short circuited by confirmation bias. If a statement sounds just and right to us, we won't generally question it. It's like a moral proofreading sense. Or laziness. You choose.These decisions are made on the basis of moral intuitions, or moral foundations, as they are termed.Moral Foundations TheoryAs liberals, we make our decision on about three factors.Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.These three values are the values of the secularized, democratic state. My father used to describe this (and I don't know if this was him or from some other source) as the transition from Ethnos to Demos/Civitas -- from the Tribe to the People or Citizenry.But conservatives base their moral intuitions on these factors plus three more dimensions (pardoning the generalities!):Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)The last three values are based on the Ethnos -- they are values derived from an ingroup (cronyistically/clannishly/blood-will-tell vs in the interest of entirely the first two factors), a specific relational heirarchy, or a specific religious or ethnic culture.To a liberal, the GOP argument seems to be a clear logical fallacy, with a refutation based in our top three moral intuitions.We care about vets but the GOP has not. We can/should care about both.We can resist the zero sum game and offer sanctuary to refugees fleeing our enemy and call out the GOP for withholding benefits to vetsThe refugees are aggrieved, fleeing Daesh, and so we should open our doorsThis is based on a liberal confirmation bias. We do not check the statement for it's value in a conservative value framework.It is therefore dismissed as simple rhetoric, and the conservatives are idiots. This is a mistake.It's not only rude, but causes liberals to underestimate opponents and make a whole lot of tactical errors, and alienate a whole swath of fellow citizens by treating them like idiots and obviously not trying to meet them halfway in their "reality framework."If not for the sake of peace and understanding, then for the sake of political advantage -- don't be that guy.Back to our example:To a conservative, the first three and last three factors of moral intuition kick in.We care about vets and want to protect them. Conservatives are documented to be more afraid of strangers, terrorism, and outside threats. They are more likely to believe that terrorists lurk within the ranks of the refugees.We owe vets first. (again, the congressional record will not be consulted)Obama is dictating to the states that they must take in refugees. States rights!Veterans are in our ingroup; Syrians are not.Veterans deserve respect as they have served our country; Syrians are owed nothing.To4 some, our veterans are pictured as People Like Them, vs Dirty Ragheads (sorry, but look at the Trump crowd, it's just true)Note how the focus on the first three factors don't even yield the same primary concern, in this case.Did you try to see the statement through the eyes of its intended audience?Nope.That means that the GOP can say things like this as much as they want, and liberals saying, "You lie!" sounds morally reprehensible to their base. By condemning this rhetoric as flat manipulation, you play into the hands of the GOP to rile up their folks to believe that you are a threat to the world they live in. And so long as you do not empathize with their worldview, they're right.They may not reciprocate in looking at your worldview either. But someone has to take first steps. My experience has been, talking to conservatives, that by approaching a conservative on their vocabulary, you establish that you are not an alien, you are a fellow citizen, you can communicate -- and you become part -- in some senses -- of their ingroup (and not a real liberal often enough in their mind, because real liberals aren't reasonable!).For me, my mixed heritage of being the daughter of a UU minister dad and a Jewish mom has been invaluable here. Not only did it teach me to move between cultures sometimes wary of one another from a very early age, but it gives me a cultural vocabulary by which to communicate with several "tribes" of American conservatives.With a Christian conservative arguing against, say, welfare programs, I can make a very good case for the extension of Christian charity through the institution of the state, that we are to render unto Caesar, that when Jesus says the poor will always be with us He is not saying that means we get to ignore the problem. I can quote chapter and verse on the duties of disciplehood to go do works in society, how inclusive those instructions are, and how we are not meant to exercise Pharisee-like prissy judgement regarding charity and such. Trust me, I have this one down, and it is every ounce of it sincere and straight out of my father's vestry. He was attracted to the Universalist ministry due to their amazing devotion to social action in the 50s. I didn't fall far from the tree.It is easier to argue the case of the safety net to a conservative Christian, by far, than to a Libertarian or Objectivist, for example -- who will use the trappings of logic to spar with you.Regardless, please adopt the common wisdom that logic is not a factor in political decision making for the average American (and ponder, I'm just the messenger here -- it works. You wouldn't see it so much if it weren't the case. Let's work to make it less the case? When was the last time you saw civics offered outside of prep for a citizenship test? Much less "applied" civics? Then add in the theory of Moral Intuitions if you can wrap your head around it. I know it's kind of brain surgery.What seems obvious drivel through the glass darkly to an American Liberal, becomes a fairly noble appeal to values to an American Conservative.The shorthand is easily decoded.The history of the GOP Congressional Record will not be consulted.The drinking game of Logical Fallacy BINGO will not be played.It becomes a casual statement of obvious truth. If we can't take care of our vets, why should we be extending help to strangers?The rhetoric is used because it works. Not only because it works, but because it makes sense to the people who use it (although most of them are sophisticated enough to understand that they are manipulating people, just as any sales person is).If you don't believe in Moral Intuitions/Foundations Theory yet, I recommend that you adopt it as a working framework, a gedankenexperiment, for a while. Use it to read and interpret conservative press. Discuss issues with conservative co-workers. If you can handle the cognitive dissonance, you will be able to communicate on the issues better, and understand what is going on around you better.If you get really good? You'll be able to do what I learned to do, which is to write a speech that appeals to most liberals and most swing-to-lightweight-conservative voters at the same time with the same words, and often radically different connotative meanings, and send everyone away happy and no idea they heard different speeches. All those overlapping layers of meanings had to be within my candidate's own value system too. This is a skill that pays real money. It's hard and it's sometimes morally ambiguous.Still, abstractly, I love sonnet form. Working within strict restrictions is so much more creative than free-form composition sometimes. And if there are no lies in either speech that's heard, is it a problem?Most of the SOTUS transcripts are decent studies for this, although they're pretty lightweight, since they aren't campaign pieces. Churchill was a master of this art, but that can be a hard reading for a modern American audience.My favorite simple example to watch out for is any use of the term "social contract" -- a term one friend isolated as having seven distinct meanings in historical political science. And depending on the listener's personal bias, they will hear the connotation that fits their bias, and none else.Here's a little intro to that rat's nest: (http://www.academia.edu/3138759/Social_Contract_Theory_by_Hobbes_Locke_and_Rousseau)Modern political rhetoric is even more finely studied and tuned than the infomercials they use to sell the Average American created needs on Home Shopping Network, or Apple's SuperBowl ads. Be very afraid.People are not so often idiots as individuals, although crowds can easily seem to be. If you don't respect the person across the negotiating table you will never be able to negotiate at all. It's antidemocratic. It's obviously the death of statecraft.There are people who you will never reach with logic alone. Who do not live in the same framework of meaning that you do -- and that that isn't necessarily inherently poisonous, nor does it make them "irrational people," although it may make them people who prioritize Ethnos morality over rationality in their decision making.You may have a moral opinion about that value. I do. It's allowed. But you must recognize it as a moral opinion, not a rational one.If you define conservatives as irrational and unintelligent and crazy, you are signing up for a life cut off from influence in your environment -- looking irrational and unintelligent and crazy to your corresponding numbers.Stop the cycle.It's only logical.