Chingy

Originally posted by crap at 2005-4-27 01:20 AM:
4 a5 |8 Z5 u1 ~; ?
# y+ V, B. O" ~: h+ S2 c* R' h/ C/ Y' o: T
我都覺得錯不在他們, 是他們的父母 ...

( V% s1 g' i6 W
9 g' {# X# G# }% bIn Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

crap

Originally posted by Chingy at 2005-4-27 07:12 AM:
+ b+ U6 t* a1 i$ ]
  u. T( V0 s! T6 n. u
/ v, c$ {/ L/ y  G0 oIn Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

8 l: p' X! G1 ~' q/ m. g, X) e% D0 u' a) c
oh really...$ e+ w# i6 a2 C: b2 r2 x* i
hahhaa, thx a lot^^"
: A% j) X+ t. P* q' V$ @7 ~  pi didn't watch ch.2

springspring

挺出名，在偶理學的問題! N1 ~/ I  v" W1 \9 z/ [
/ E- u* M  f4 |. o2 p% |
當然這是個假設性問題! ]! p- O4 [6 K7 R% }1 Q
但將人數倍大7 G7 `+ n# u+ G4 V/ f6 A( N
例如是十個一個，到一百個一個，到一千個一個6 K. D9 F4 |( H* K( @: H
(情況可以換作其他)
5 }: v9 U; E* C/ ?+ A2 V& ?始終有條界線

easonwing

絕情谷既問題...% O. r; Q+ K% `! g' m7 D0 ^
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...9 j7 J( P) v  U# r
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

easonwing

Originally posted by easonwing at 2005-4-27 12:12 PM:' o" X, U$ A. F/ V( v
絕情谷既問題...
5 [0 I' ~! `$ y1 z  \6 Q如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...: x' F4 N, G, b+ L$ m
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

3 y: }  u# C9 \% h/ D! u4 Q
殺一警百...

srfqt1

其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多愈好8 Q8 b' ]2 [9 C* ?4 y1 a
於是好像好順理成章要讓火車轉往停用的鐵軌,等多d小朋友逃生
+ c: i2 P0 ~2 A: {但是諗深一層,咁樣真係好像唔係好o岩$ F0 |& J. H$ r7 o0 x1 V" h
好像crap兄講一樣,停用軌玩的小孩, 因他始終才是守規則的人, 他可沒有預料過會有危險,點解要犧牲一個守規矩的小朋友,去換取其他唔守規矩的小朋友的性命呢
9 X8 q+ m9 N- m8 s8 n* R7 ^其實到底人數的多與少值唔值得去考慮呢6 V2 [* p) c3 B( G
+ X1 L/ B" ^; _: g% L5 n
我估如果我有時間去想清楚的話,我都係會救係停用路軌玩的小孩,我都認為冇理由要犧牲守規矩的小朋友,去換取其他唔守規矩的小朋友的性命" f5 l6 q7 q% p1 K9 ^3 `7 ^/ q
不過,係千鈞一髮的時間要我去做抉擇的話,可能我應該會被表面上的人數的多與少去蒙蔽咗,而且眼前真係有一班小朋友,不過的確又好像maxfigo講話明係停用...咁條鐵軌一定有d問題ga la...如果轉左去好易累死果班乘客 !!,可能我係會其實為咗少數唔守規矩的小朋友,犧牲咗更多無辜的火車乘客

crap

Originally posted by srfqt1 at 2005-4-27 05:44 PM:
# [& E5 j" Q2 u* V  o6 g$ ]其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多 ...

* Z- |; L+ X, {! b' G& c$ ?& e7 \  M: l  }* K; H5 u9 G2 k) k
haha, srfqt1兄, 我們終能於球場外達成一致的睇法, 哈, 相當有趣5 i+ m8 E' E/ F
你所說的也對, 下意識的確會選擇救人多的一方, 當時根本沒辦法分清誰對誰錯, 只好靠本能做決定..其他的要看天意了....3 x7 \* M$ R" X* K

* F/ v$ C3 P. b* D1 Up.s. 小弟昨天在你於好文區發表的文章下留了言, srfqt1兄你有看到嗎

jason williams

i think i will help those children instead of that child
# ]( j4 w6 t; z+ k% }yes, my reason is helping more* h* I% I- ]6 B1 e
for this sudden and short period, i dun think i can have so much time to think the background!; q8 a; d: I- J& g4 O$ h* c0 V$ o
if saying that child obey the rule but others are not, i think this is not a very good reason to help that child+ G# i$ n2 k0 h8 ]6 p
because no matter the rail is using or not, i think also no gd to play in that place, right?6 D: X5 @5 {; v: h' A5 `, ]9 V/ k3 V8 P5 b
also i think the question hasn't tell us the background, none  know that child is obeyin the rule so that he play at the rail which is not using!!!9 {# B# [  L; T% J& Y8 B6 l
may be other reasons so that he play himself at there, such as, he is a bad guy that none like to play with him, or all children also dunno which is using and which is not using!
' Q7 s! N$ I1 R& o- w8 ^under so much confusing on the background, i would choose help more than less, just a normal think during this short urgetn period!!!

sfxc0000

作為一個人類~~
4 ?" @4 Y. n/ I! O  M+ U, a: i當我見到呢D咁危急o既事情~~& n3 r8 m+ y  u6 ]1 L
我冇可能可以好理性去諗個後果~~
# a( l6 C4 z+ P正常黎講一定係以人數為先~~
# f  I: C! j6 h6 J4 u- |即係我會救個一班唔守規矩o既細路而犧牲o個位守規矩o既細路~~' C: E! O4 z' h% m9 D1 a/ O
我只有o係事件過後先可以好似Crap同srfqt1好理性咁去分析輕重, 對錯~~) Q+ O2 \/ J3 x3 o" ^
但如果o係當時o既情況中~~
6 C  \4 |5 u% H0 V9 u5 J; A我只有犧牲一位細路的性命稷換取一班細路的性命

中華卡樂ｂ

我諗我不會搞到火車轉往停用的鐵軌，因為咁樣會搞到火車乘客犧牲，而且果個守規矩既細路冇理由要佢犧牲的！而且我睇到火車黎中，我會用我既本能去救果一班唔守規矩既壞細路，雖然我明白到一定會有人死，可能我自己都會死，但我咁做一定唔會後悔，減少犧牲的人數，而且可以令一班唔守規矩而且死唔去既壞細路知道錯誤！（個人意見）