When the counterargument appears intelligent but is only stupidity in disguise.

It is most interesting to observe how facts are countered by emotionalism (the public's reaction when this person states an elementary fact) and are immediately followed by pseudo-responses that answer nothing but twist words and facts. Low-level sophistry has now taken over the 21st century thanks to the media and schools. Let's try to analyze the sentence: “You are turning a question about sexual violence into one about religion.” Is it true or not that all these people shared the same cult? Are there ideological elements in this cult that could be directly related to these crimes? If we try to rephrase this speech using other words, we could say, “All those who committed the atrocities of the death camps belonged to the Nazi ideology.” No one in their right mind would say, “You are trying to turn the question of extermination into one about ideology,” since the correlation is obvious. The fundamental question is here: why is the correlation obvious in one case and not in the other? Wouldn't it suffice to read the basic texts of this cult to realize that the “ideal man” of this cult was doing the very same things, having married a 6-year-old girl (Aisha) with whom he consummated when she was 9? Since this represents the human ideal in this cult, the correlation should seem obvious or not? Well, but you have to read those texts, right? What a century!