Chingy

Originally posted by crap at 2005-4-27 01:20 AM:! V/ X' e- X# y
; V) z2 J$ b  S8 g8 i
/ W8 U" K6 t& N% S  ]. S
我都覺得錯不在他們, 是他們的父母 ...

5 f0 d" `. A8 v" f3 v1 s+ m) F/ {  y- {  u& _9 E/ |
In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

crap

Originally posted by Chingy at 2005-4-27 07:12 AM:4 D8 t( ^% M  r* {. Y9 R
2 h: g  R  I, z- D+ z4 q! p
' `4 E$ U* R# J( ]; |6 I
In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

- @) A  a9 j$ e, x1 [
7 b$ d6 T" h5 s# @& T- q
oh really..., g" c2 G) Y8 `+ a7 K% v/ |
hahhaa, thx a lot^^"+ E8 l' d( B% M/ x+ e* k& j
i didn't watch ch.2

springspring

挺出名，在偶理學的問題% G% i  A' b- h3 _* {' U

5 k0 I1 J$ X$ o5 s/ h, b+ K* R當然這是個假設性問題
& k! g  L! b2 [9 z# I5 L! T8 b但將人數倍大: q, \* Q3 L* m6 K8 D& E
例如是十個一個，到一百個一個，到一千個一個8 F4 h: e" F, W, V. ~! G$ D0 Z
(情況可以換作其他)
. ?" [; s1 R) K. ^  C5 o始終有條界線

easonwing

絕情谷既問題...+ Z  n0 `, F! |9 b' O$ P4 l
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...
8 w8 @$ A3 u+ m' f$ i) C- T如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

easonwing

Originally posted by easonwing at 2005-4-27 12:12 PM:
. ^; d4 E6 E1 e/ f2 T1 x" M絕情谷既問題...
% E, k, c: J$ D9 P1 o) o1 l如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...
1 q8 [9 K/ }) w. q如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

. S- U$ V1 S) B$ c' h
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
: G. d* @& h& j8 W1 K8 f: T7 K2 @! l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+ ^3 z' y' @1 \: I
但是諗深一層,咁樣真係好像唔係好o岩# J0 n: C) o$ x+ W% }. P% `
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
" V* Q2 w# T! z& ]5 i其實到底人數的多與少值唔值得去考慮呢
6 p% T) A0 d. i" W* u
- S7 t2 F4 |: z' U2 C. @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! }  G7 @( b7 S9 o5 F+ X
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:) c% W8 u* n- i5 v5 K3 S
其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多 ...

% _3 U, h* w5 T# b0 [/ j+ A) F4 [6 X/ `# g% P" M' ^
haha, srfqt1兄, 我們終能於球場外達成一致的睇法, 哈, 相當有趣8 v# ^# ^' G) M
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...., R3 [7 B- o) b1 o& {
( \6 }& N7 w+ T: {$ K2 l3 n
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
$ O# @- ?$ O$ V; Hyes, my reason is helping more+ K/ C' V6 h: @# T! s+ l
for this sudden and short period, i dun think i can have so much time to think the background!" n- F  h+ E4 ?, U2 q) ^$ u! J' q
if saying that child obey the rule but others are not, i think this is not a very good reason to help that child
4 i' z: p7 m  P# \, Kbecause no matter the rail is using or not, i think also no gd to play in that place, right?% b- s. ?6 l' a( A3 c- t! n# ^
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!!!$ A3 ~# Z5 J+ C1 \% B' g7 e% J# X
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!, l+ B- Q1 v* F. B$ w- {+ E
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~~3 v, }! ?' m- D
當我見到呢D咁危急o既事情~~7 d7 Y% _+ K4 ~) _. O2 C1 W0 N5 d
我冇可能可以好理性去諗個後果~~" V4 |% R0 `  I8 u  e
正常黎講一定係以人數為先~~  ^% {2 I' A( ?& `. f1 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~~2 a0 a; {3 N1 K
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~~) |$ m" G$ @) j. H5 f, k# [) ~6 ^
但如果o係當時o既情況中~~( D) W* t+ U5 ^0 {  \( v
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）