Chingy

Originally posted by crap at 2005-4-27 01:20 AM:& ^& N3 R; k: p* }, l( V

& p4 [! x) c* A5 C1 Q- U  v" B& [' h4 X/ u
我都覺得錯不在他們, 是他們的父母 ...

7 m' I5 M7 }1 i+ [* j
. C# w" c& G+ M2 K' Q- q
In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

crap

Originally posted by Chingy at 2005-4-27 07:12 AM:4 I0 E4 o  C% n5 N1 _

, `8 y+ R. E7 j8 M/ j0 Y, M7 ]
6 Y. @! _% ~8 X6 X3 j& VIn Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

6 V* e3 K- W0 q( c7 v& f$ a! I' R. A, f) V
oh really...
0 a7 c3 D! J* A: o4 o+ p4 ohahhaa, thx a lot^^"
8 m' |6 G8 e8 }i didn't watch ch.2

springspring

挺出名，在偶理學的問題: g: n( Y7 D8 T8 i) [4 A5 U

0 V) ~# j! I8 p0 u  a% x9 ~8 J當然這是個假設性問題$ H: }  ^$ X4 v5 d% l& `
但將人數倍大2 [) s7 k9 q& E
例如是十個一個，到一百個一個，到一千個一個- K8 r9 @( ^: a7 o+ R6 L
(情況可以換作其他)
& l7 L* _2 F8 ^8 p$ i# z% s始終有條界線

easonwing

絕情谷既問題...6 ]  p* }; z3 S0 h' P
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...! f7 Y8 f- R- b! z9 ]
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

easonwing

Originally posted by easonwing at 2005-4-27 12:12 PM:
8 b, l+ \/ w" F: z絕情谷既問題...
6 O" h; x$ o! O8 |如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...% o: T9 e: j6 k6 {" a3 k
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

* u8 K6 a6 H  _1 m6 P, |: K  X. C
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
* u4 A& g, u- s4 K, Z& 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
( ^5 S/ C' k. Y$ z5 [& P: s但是諗深一層,咁樣真係好像唔係好o岩
% m# X. a6 x, S9 }- y( R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
5 d8 [7 }( v  {其實到底人數的多與少值唔值得去考慮呢. T- e4 }% E: D+ Y9 c

+ i! ]' r' `$ i& E' Q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
7 }5 n- E; _& M/ K4 H; H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:
7 {7 ]1 m/ j: S+ b/ Y0 k' V其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多 ...

4 X6 O% e7 s, e
) w7 W! R& v. a  a" x6 V% Z
haha, srfqt1兄, 我們終能於球場外達成一致的睇法, 哈, 相當有趣
9 d' V9 P3 _% i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....6 d4 Q$ `0 c: A/ g: H/ @% L

, t& e1 _; l2 ~p.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. H! V7 p) T. D; d( c1 Q
yes, my reason is helping more* J6 r% O: H/ \7 P" G/ a$ j$ h
for this sudden and short period, i dun think i can have so much time to think the background!
' _) g- @6 D4 a) ]! p2 Y+ P2 j0 dif saying that child obey the rule but others are not, i think this is not a very good reason to help that child: S' h5 M4 u- |4 M" P
because no matter the rail is using or not, i think also no gd to play in that place, right?& l: S. p6 I0 u7 y# Z' h/ K
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!!!
) ]1 V/ C3 Y+ H  e9 g2 |- emay 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!
% A- v) y  n, i: D( g! H# ~5 Uunder 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~~5 z# ?* q6 ^: q+ ^
當我見到呢D咁危急o既事情~~2 W. k7 G5 y% j! m! q9 ^. z
我冇可能可以好理性去諗個後果~~
6 n7 K5 g3 ?, p4 q9 f8 S  [正常黎講一定係以人數為先~~. s) G8 Q9 N2 c) y7 K9 b) w
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~~6 V3 r" M6 K, c8 C
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~~* p  ^' Q+ Y0 S+ g5 Z4 l
但如果o係當時o既情況中~~
' o- K/ r" q9 [* \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）