1. He made no arguments, he just asserted a different conclusion. Which is the equivalent of saying "you're wrong, jackass!" Is that not ad hominem? "Your wrong" is not "substantial issues with the argument itself". (and why would you think you could just say that and expect anyone to believe it when the comment is right there for everyone to see?)
2. Do you want hacker news to be a place where "your wrong, jackass" type posts are acceptable? "Your wrong" is fine- even if it fails to make an argument, I don't mind.
But name calling makes debate difficult-- notice how he has managed to completely derail the topic of debate (which was not about the constitution, but about what can be done when the government is shutting down hip hop sites.)
"You're wrong, jackass" is not ad hominem, because no one is saying you're wrong because you're a jackass, they're first saying that you're wrong and then concluding based on that that you're a jackass. Ad hominem is dismissing an argument based on the characteristics of the one making it, and no one has done that.
Not ad hominem, agreed, but certainly rude. However, I disagree that the poster characterised the situation in this way! He never called him a jackass, and it can't even be said that what was stated was equivalent to this.
The original post made an observation about a way they perceived nirvana posts to HN, then gave substantial reasons why they disagreed with him. There was no aggression tha I could read, only disagreement.
Nirvana is wrong that the original post was the equivalent of "you're wrong, jackass". There were no insults given, this is entirely something that nirvana has read into the post and that isn't there.
1. He made no arguments, he just asserted a different conclusion. Which is the equivalent of saying "you're wrong, jackass!" Is that not ad hominem? "Your wrong" is not "substantial issues with the argument itself". (and why would you think you could just say that and expect anyone to believe it when the comment is right there for everyone to see?)
2. Do you want hacker news to be a place where "your wrong, jackass" type posts are acceptable? "Your wrong" is fine- even if it fails to make an argument, I don't mind.
But name calling makes debate difficult-- notice how he has managed to completely derail the topic of debate (which was not about the constitution, but about what can be done when the government is shutting down hip hop sites.)