Chingy

Originally posted by crap at 2005-4-27 01:20 AM:
9 l. f5 |/ T& q: l% R! V0 m" t& K! [! ?( L

* E; H! u& c4 g) T5 w我都覺得錯不在他們, 是他們的父母 ...

1 Q( W* b" J) j$ e+ ]5 @  @
0 s' O( U- [3 e2 l
In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

crap

Originally posted by Chingy at 2005-4-27 07:12 AM:$ W3 m# N+ K, s0 V1 B# _8 c
! g' T& u4 ~  l+ H* W* n) n, a, A: S
# y1 g6 ]0 p7 s5 X
In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

5 b1 W3 o% F, E) S% {. g# c$ {3 Z, _% ]" |9 |
oh really...+ O1 Q( N$ x- a7 q  K1 k% ]
hahhaa, thx a lot^^"
9 l. J/ }8 ]! A) P, F) C* \i didn't watch ch.2

springspring

挺出名，在偶理學的問題* x5 h5 `1 l2 ^1 V" e

' i% N6 P( P# x0 g當然這是個假設性問題
7 p; @# O# C2 ?1 Q& ?  j2 B' J- w( B但將人數倍大
- Z. ^& Q- c0 _: M/ j例如是十個一個，到一百個一個，到一千個一個+ h- q0 l+ |* N1 O
(情況可以換作其他)
0 e" D1 I# }5 r始終有條界線

easonwing

絕情谷既問題.../ ^1 A7 ?9 _. J" m2 \) T" A
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...7 V& k" I) @& Q: y8 g
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

easonwing

Originally posted by easonwing at 2005-4-27 12:12 PM:) A0 k. ]1 p- v7 L7 k( G
絕情谷既問題...6 A" @  d) n" @( o
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...0 i+ S3 M4 o' c. @. N5 E; U
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

  d/ w, S( K4 \9 s8 E! ?+ z0 _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
& i: G. v: K" p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
' H; Z! e6 X) i: k7 Q2 L% _. L: s( G但是諗深一層,咁樣真係好像唔係好o岩; s4 y2 x6 |+ v5 m( E
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
. N; P" C3 t8 t) I其實到底人數的多與少值唔值得去考慮呢5 x3 _; ?2 h5 q- w8 V2 i
, x9 `0 v+ N7 K: `
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
$ X" Z- C; d* w- G5 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:5 l# z% g. {8 u3 b& V- S4 N) a
其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多 ...

) O: ]* q: e2 n) _" s
" \$ Z* i8 z" |: J8 O& Z- g) k+ Vhaha, srfqt1兄, 我們終能於球場外達成一致的睇法, 哈, 相當有趣
4 l+ e, f$ }/ w5 t' R' B5 O+ ~; W& K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....& x; e  U# m5 Z
" J: I& V$ C# W1 B+ [$ Y% d+ T
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
2 T- U5 O7 |# U: Q3 uyes, my reason is helping more
4 o1 n* j) `5 H% I5 S  |. u- ]for this sudden and short period, i dun think i can have so much time to think the background!) N; M1 Q" p" i
if saying that child obey the rule but others are not, i think this is not a very good reason to help that child
( Q) t, P+ L, b9 m0 pbecause no matter the rail is using or not, i think also no gd to play in that place, right?
) `; F2 b2 F$ walso 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!!!
- T3 a3 z5 D, k, p6 d6 l6 u; S$ \& p  vmay 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!
3 l5 A3 `( |' h& g& |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~~" b; x! [* o& |0 p1 g5 |
當我見到呢D咁危急o既事情~~
0 {" o1 K' Y0 V0 s! j- G9 L我冇可能可以好理性去諗個後果~~
5 r$ u. T' ]8 d3 t* U4 L  K+ E& M正常黎講一定係以人數為先~~
, B0 a+ m4 e" ~: O' Q9 |& q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~~& I1 [* }8 n2 Q) B3 N9 n. b7 @
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~~
! k4 O1 c% j/ r# l9 B/ N1 w但如果o係當時o既情況中~~
2 C& P" ?' U5 K* e5 z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）