To be clear, I was referring to ad hominem attacks on the participants in the debate. @anon61221983’s response to @shaddack’s original comment was civil, as was his response, even if it was logically flawed. I suppose the initial sentiment - that women are unreliable unless they are sex workers - is an ad hominem attack on women in general.
I don’t think my words could be interpreted as excusing him or his initial comment (which I don’t agree with). I was just happy that the subsequent exchange didn’t descend into personal attacks. Hence why I felt @awjt’s assertion that people were beating up on @shaddack was a bit too strong.
