Chingy

Originally posted by crap at 2005-4-27 01:20 AM:: a& n0 V3 N  P  d0 [

/ V1 ^/ [' |5 F* @9 N5 T1 a$ C$ {, M
我都覺得錯不在他們, 是他們的父母 ...

$ v) F- C% A6 j
3 J+ I: j+ G  P& G1 {. s0 H( F" mIn Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

crap

Originally posted by Chingy at 2005-4-27 07:12 AM:
7 j, z6 u* r. g( C# K
6 q/ J; L0 Q* D! F6 M% r; D# [6 h
8 d& u8 l$ ^1 {In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

. S+ Q5 T9 {6 L  p1 q6 O5 @
! S7 c* Y1 I# K, x, ^. [oh really...
' y' G# _% j0 Ohahhaa, thx a lot^^"+ ^# |* C+ `. o! ]5 }" P
i didn't watch ch.2

springspring

挺出名，在偶理學的問題
0 [5 M" S1 r9 q# n% I: ^$ ~, p/ l% H6 I  ?. g2 U2 B5 I
當然這是個假設性問題
, i- k- R8 \% ]9 |8 o但將人數倍大/ d  u- P" |9 C. X5 Y
例如是十個一個，到一百個一個，到一千個一個# r' ~/ t4 t: A9 G2 y
(情況可以換作其他)
* K; f6 U$ E, |8 n始終有條界線

easonwing

絕情谷既問題..., v& U# v  @) h/ t
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...7 q. Q% X5 b9 Z% u8 ?
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

easonwing

Originally posted by easonwing at 2005-4-27 12:12 PM:, V5 J( H- ^1 G6 }6 s5 w3 u
絕情谷既問題...
, v9 D# U: ^. U) k如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...
4 X$ K, w- O5 s; m如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

- x% O2 \4 R' B+ H% ^  X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; v- Z9 H2 U& D9 p8 k, [, y
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 d0 y: t) H& `1 x) G4 K
但是諗深一層,咁樣真係好像唔係好o岩) ~7 ]6 z  h+ x- L( |  e$ u
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 R. @6 a  M* \' @0 h4 Z- z# h# h0 v其實到底人數的多與少值唔值得去考慮呢8 k7 }& C* _( c
: I0 Z3 p# @& E, J2 a7 q  g
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
! l$ x/ N: ~  M1 X4 \& _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:
% }9 {7 P& Y. l5 R其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多 ...

. j4 R! U. V0 o% I

3 r( G- L5 W1 r' x2 y* Q1 k5 Ehaha, srfqt1兄, 我們終能於球場外達成一致的睇法, 哈, 相當有趣  r2 ~% j7 D, D: E' t& o( \7 n
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....
: r2 C) \7 {2 o6 S) J  i
4 t- g# d$ J* x$ q+ v% Kp.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% a! p1 E$ |& R6 R0 y
yes, my reason is helping more
/ b' x7 S' Y* U) a5 X' Dfor this sudden and short period, i dun think i can have so much time to think the background!
% n7 K- p! s+ d. Wif saying that child obey the rule but others are not, i think this is not a very good reason to help that child* t# V3 H4 G' D7 U" l8 g" P
because no matter the rail is using or not, i think also no gd to play in that place, right?
0 h. ?( m' \$ ^+ ^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!!!
# v5 F! }5 H' @+ Bmay 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!
- ~1 o- J. \& L( v; {% h* ^  d3 {. dunder 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 }6 z: q; G* |. J當我見到呢D咁危急o既事情~~6 J1 L: M4 r' S. l$ n- \$ Y3 D
我冇可能可以好理性去諗個後果~~2 m9 V/ W/ D8 Y3 o) Q6 c7 b
正常黎講一定係以人數為先~~, b5 Y, A, V6 K: {* 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~~1 I" y1 O$ v" ?7 {: F5 i
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~~
( Z% t' b0 s  j# J* ^但如果o係當時o既情況中~~
( f2 ~! e. b0 \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）