人身攻击（Ad hominem）并不总属于逻辑谬误，在这个情境下甚至可能根本不算。对人不对事（Ad Personam）才是。你应该去读读亚瑟·叔本华的《论辩的艺术：获胜的艺术》（Eristic Dialectics: The Art Of Being Right）。说他因为是个只写 Java 的程序员而带有偏见，显然并不算说错，但这也不代表他就全错了。随口一说罢了，不过这不是重点……
Ad hominem aren't always a logical fallacies, and, in this case, might not bet at all. Ad Personam are. You should read Eristic Dialectics: The Art Of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer. Saying he is biased because he is a java-only programmer isn't clearly a wrong statement, and it doesn't mean he's totally wrong either. Just saying, but that's not the point…
去读读叔本华的《辩论的艺术：争论获胜的38个花招》（The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument）。篇幅不长，但如果你刚接触这个领域，绝对能让你脑洞大开。要是觉得篇幅还是长，那就读个精简版。如果看完之后还有时间的话……
Read Schopenhauer „The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument”. It’s a short read, but mind opening if you’re new to the subject. If it seems too long then just read some shortened version. If you still have some time after that then…
这让我想起了叔本华那篇（相当搞笑的）短文《辩论的艺术》（The Art of Being Right），他在里面揭露了人们在并非真正占理的情况下强词夺理的各种套路。英文译本看这里：http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/
This reminds me of Schopenhauer's (rather funny) essay The Art of Being Right where he exposes various strategies by which people can be right, without actually being right. You can find an English translation here: http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/
人身攻击（Ad hominem）并不总属于逻辑谬误，在这个情境下甚至可能根本不算。对人不对事（Ad Personam）才是。你应该去读读亚瑟·叔本华的《论辩的艺术：获胜的艺术》（Eristic Dialectics: The Art Of Being Right）。说他因为是个只写 Java 的程序员而带有偏见，显然并不算说错，但这也不代表他就全错了。随口一说罢了，不过这不是重点……
Ad hominem aren't always a logical fallacies, and, in this case, might not bet at all. Ad Personam are. You should read Eristic Dialectics: The Art Of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer. Saying he is biased because he is a java-only programmer isn't clearly a wrong statement, and it doesn't mean he's totally wrong either. Just saying, but that's not the point…
去读读叔本华的《辩论的艺术：争论获胜的38个花招》（The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument）。篇幅不长，但如果你刚接触这个领域，绝对能让你脑洞大开。要是觉得篇幅还是长，那就读个精简版。如果看完之后还有时间的话……
Read Schopenhauer „The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument”. It’s a short read, but mind opening if you’re new to the subject. If it seems too long then just read some shortened version. If you still have some time after that then…
这让我想起了叔本华那篇（相当搞笑的）短文《辩论的艺术》（The Art of Being Right），他在里面揭露了人们在并非真正占理的情况下强词夺理的各种套路。英文译本看这里：http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/
This reminds me of Schopenhauer's (rather funny) essay The Art of Being Right where he exposes various strategies by which people can be right, without actually being right. You can find an English translation here: http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right 就是这玩意的更新版和“现代”版本。叔本华的力量：论辩术（Eristic Dialectic）！
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right is the updated and 'modern' version of this. The power of Schopenhauer: Eristic Dialectic!
《辩论的艺术》——叔本华
The Art of Being Right - Schopenhauer
正好有本书适合他：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
There is just the book for him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right