No. You might think he's being a hypocrite but even though it's undeniably an extreme thing to say it is still different and therefore he's not being a hypocrite. Because you're saying it to a grown up person who understands, someone you can judge upon their actions, what they say etc. Although wrong, there might be a legitimate reason to say oh well you know what you disgust me and i wish you the worst. For a child is different. Why would you wish ill on an innocent soul, someone who doesn't know anything, can't have malice and can't defend themselves.
There is a difference. He's not being a hypocrite.
I don't think he is one, he is one. You're just trying to get out of that using shallow excuses. Do you know what you are doing? You drew a line in front of yourself and decided that if you don't cross that line, you're not doing anything wrong. You then drew a different line behind another person and decided that person did something wrong because he already crossed the line you just drew behind him and now you're trying to justify that judgement by virtue of it being two different lines.
That's hypocrisy, don't try to beat around the bush by nitpicking as that makes it just that more obvious. Wishing someone death and torture for something like that isn't an extreme thing to say, it's a psychotic thing to say. When your mind flips that easily to torture and death because you read a shallow comment that you think is morally unacceptable, but don't think there isn't anything morally wrong with what you said in response, you are a hypocrite. Don't try to sugarcoat it and I'm pretty sure you already realized that, but believed you could cover it up either way as saying "it's still different and therefore not hypocritical" is as flaccid and unconvincing as it sounds. That sounds like an 'exemplary' politician that has been busted on doing something wrong, but tried to get out of it using any excuse he could think of as long as he doesn't have to admit outright he's being a hypocrite.
Person A says a mother should have the right to decide about the life of her child. Person B says person A deserves death and torture. Now if you would remove all emotional and moralistic aspects and approach this purely rationally, in the case of person A someone not necessarily dies and the manner of death isn't clear either. In the case of person B there's a 100% guarantee someone will die a gruesome death. So you could even argue that person B is far worse than person A.
Vague questions create vague answers. However wishing someone death and torture leaves little to the imagination. If you then try to argue there is nothing wrong here, you really should realize your reasoning got screwed up somewhere along the line. To make this even more clear, it's actually nowhere specified this is about young people. It's loosely implied, but considering you are so fond of nitpicking, nothing excludes for example the scenario of an 80-year old person and his 100-year old mother as they're still parent and child. So all your stuff about innocent, poor souls that don't know anything is just a farce you used to hit the emotional strings of people rather than employing logic.
And this brings me back again to my very first comment, namely that the OP's question was incredibly vague, which results in vague replies that due to their lack of context leave quite a lot open for interpretation, like for instance what is a child? Now if you couldn't even realize something basic as that and went immediately psycho with death and torture-threats, yes you are a bona fide hypocrite as then it seems you're just finding excuses to vent your anger out and trying to justify that, isn't really admirable either. To be honest I don't even get why you bothered starting this argument in the first place as it was a lost cause from the get-go. Even if you would be a 100% correct, that would merely establish that person A is worse than person B, which does not make him any less hypocritical.
