[apl]

  > They were incorrect on a side detail (...)

Doesn't cover it at all. OP gives a mechanistic account of how the construct of "porn addiction" works and how it affects people; there isn't much to his post other than that. His mechanistic account happens to be incorrect, or at the very least sufficiently misguided to be worthless, and people call him out on that.

[grandpa]

I think the concern is not that people called him out when he was wrong, but that one person phrased it very rudely.

[Karunamon]

Which is, when it comes right down to it, is a tone argument. Which is only one step above fallacious reasoning.[1] Calling something BS that's well, BS in a rude way does not negate that call of BS. The person doing the attacking has done so using an explicit refutation of a couple of the author's main points.

[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grahams_Hierarchy_of_Disag...

[neumann_alfred]

Calling something BS that's well, BS in a rude way does not negate that call of BS.

And nobody claimed that it does. They simply pointed out that it's kinda weak to be an asshole in response; the fact the the asshole had a point doesn't make them not an asshole "Yeah but he's right". That's great, but not the point, and was also mentioned by the very people criticizing the asshole for being one. All further responses to that just went in circles, attacking strawmen like you just did.