Chingy

Originally posted by crap at 2005-4-27 01:20 AM:
3 r2 M5 [! H( ?0 R+ F. I3 t! U6 L8 V( |! L/ f0 X+ h

  c1 q+ e5 ]$ L; A  G我都覺得錯不在他們, 是他們的父母 ...

+ S& D& q$ g2 J  K5 N$ Q" o% J+ {, R! N/ J
In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

crap

Originally posted by Chingy at 2005-4-27 07:12 AM:
4 F! V0 h* a) @: P& q+ e$ _* @) s! c/ H8 U1 r- _

' X# _0 \! e7 V) g, O: Q1 jIn Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

/ g7 g# B( M9 n" r* j
% n* m% R( Q! j/ f
oh really...- A1 \8 ^! W& s5 g' U' ^6 E; q
hahhaa, thx a lot^^"
" I% z+ t$ H  d' v; di didn't watch ch.2

springspring

挺出名，在偶理學的問題4 h0 F* z4 t' B. |
. z# M$ W# ]) l. G' p( z
當然這是個假設性問題
  v9 E/ Z7 ^) D0 N! K- N4 M) k" J$ c但將人數倍大
  x/ ^; l5 ~! |; q$ s; v3 `3 m例如是十個一個，到一百個一個，到一千個一個
4 I' \( i  E# X' E6 u(情況可以換作其他)/ X/ N# m2 p9 k1 a0 a* K# ?
始終有條界線

easonwing

絕情谷既問題...
( D. d, o' a% }" I如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...
! T) @' f- O+ W8 J如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

easonwing

Originally posted by easonwing at 2005-4-27 12:12 PM:6 X0 a! D, Q3 J* {( Q9 @6 m# X
絕情谷既問題...; \9 _$ B9 ^  ^( p! a4 B" j) @5 _
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...
% O# h7 F( [, G  k9 r2 c4 ]6 Q如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

7 @; E+ O; A6 j  {6 G" Y" L
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+ Z3 Z3 Y9 F; c. {
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
; V) `+ u$ e* P+ N5 Y: i但是諗深一層,咁樣真係好像唔係好o岩
2 ]9 A. g6 y4 K9 V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
# U9 n; k/ U8 x4 ~9 L) q- i其實到底人數的多與少值唔值得去考慮呢  H% U5 Z( T7 A6 m

3 H+ g) w# V# h7 J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5 X" N# O( e5 G; I7 k/ ~3 A$ ^+ Y. b. W
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:
3 Y8 j' e7 `3 e9 e" Z, Q  J# h其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多 ...

7 |4 U2 Q" J/ |
0 U6 r3 n6 e# v8 k. _6 }5 \
haha, srfqt1兄, 我們終能於球場外達成一致的睇法, 哈, 相當有趣
6 A! u- s# E; B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....
1 \9 l% D% K) [# z% M& w" Q7 Y: ^, t  f
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( M5 m( ?( ^0 r) T! Q. ?% [  E
yes, my reason is helping more* @/ ?6 r+ m/ c
for this sudden and short period, i dun think i can have so much time to think the background!, q1 F, L6 k: m3 M
if saying that child obey the rule but others are not, i think this is not a very good reason to help that child
* a. P) V0 r7 {! p7 S1 B" hbecause no matter the rail is using or not, i think also no gd to play in that place, right?
# Q2 `) k: c. M  U/ G# qalso 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!!!( w) E0 @% j- p  |. X: d4 c' w6 v
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!+ b' k2 b. }  M, t% |6 t7 Y
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~~
( n- o, |: N% }' o) k4 Y* J1 A0 }當我見到呢D咁危急o既事情~~
* V; R6 `, Q: L我冇可能可以好理性去諗個後果~~
! v* |0 R/ W7 p! L) V& l8 u& c. v. C正常黎講一定係以人數為先~~
4 l( l' h! B. n6 _- \9 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~~9 N( z4 M0 Q6 b0 [- l/ e
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~~
+ d% ]  k3 b$ U) J3 Z& {但如果o係當時o既情況中~~- r. l& G: a7 K7 \+ m
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）