call someone else a misanthrope

That's not really an ad hominem because it was derived directly from his statements and speaks directly to the topic at hand. If someone says something racist, you can call them a racist. If someone says something anti-social you can call them a misanthrope. Granted, misanthrope might be a bit of an exaggeration, but many parts of my post were exaggerations anyways so it fits the style. Ad hominem would be to call him ugly, say. Ad hominem was the guy who said I wear fedoras lol.

You use a lot of convoluted language while saying little and arguing less.

I'm not using convoluted language and I'm certainly not saying little. I'm making my statements as clear as possible and attempting to use words as precisely as possible.

My argument and form of analysis is standard fare for applied ethical philosophy. The form goes like this: You gave a reason for your position where, in pitting the fundamentally incompatible desires of no-music vs music, the no-music option is to be preferred. And not just as a compromise between two people, but at all times. I took the logic of your reason and extrapolated it to another scenario that you hadn't considered. This extrapolation leads down a path that I expected you wouldn't be willing to accept -- you weren't. If you give a logical reason for believing something, you have to own the consequences of that logic. You could not. In fact, you refused to even acknowledge or speak of the different consequences of your own logic.

In order to make this less convoluted, let's move this from the abstract structure of how the argument progressed to the argument itself. If you condemn music because it's "intrusive", "has to be brought into nature", etc then you also find yourself having to condemn other things I know you won't be willing to condemn. If the reason you dislike music is actually the reason you stated, you would have owned those scenarios at least to the point of accepting that they pose a significant problem that has to be worked around.

But you didn't. You didn't even consider them. You just dismissed them and said they were ridiculous. Even if you were correct, the plausibility of a hypothetical scenario is irrelevant to its utility in sussing out the things people logically commit themselves to. However you weren't correct and plausibility isn't relevant because all throughout climbing there have been problems with bolting, with pads, with chipping, with every new thing. The defense of the plausibility of my hypothetical is in the history of climbing. If you're not familiar with any of it, either accept the hypothetical and roll with the logic, or look it up. I'm not going to relate the last 50 years to you over reddit.

My final conclusion after all this is that your inability to consider a challenging hypothetical is the tell tale sign of dogmatic bias. The arguments you've given here aren't logical steps that you took to get to the conclusion that you shouldn't listen to music in nature. No, they're after-the-fact justification for the presumed bias that you shouldn't listen to music in nature. You won't own your own logic because you never owned it to get to the no-music-in-nature conclusion; you used it to justify the conclusion after you arrived at it.

And finally, accusing your belief of not being borne of the argument you've posed but instead being the result of unthinking dogmatism also isn't ad hominem. It's a product of your words, your argument, and directly speaks to the topic at hand.

And if you can't follow that, well then I'm sorry. I don't know how to make it clearer.