Chingy

Originally posted by crap at 2005-4-27 01:20 AM:0 I) w$ y# I7 U1 @3 M

0 K2 ?: F5 Z" Q- _0 Q5 F! v! C' W, O- U4 W5 `" g! L& S8 N! R  `
我都覺得錯不在他們, 是他們的父母 ...

/ Q+ v; l/ K  x! ?6 P

# }! X; w( c# Z! s' QIn Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

crap

Originally posted by Chingy at 2005-4-27 07:12 AM:5 M4 c$ N3 ]8 O* a
$ w6 R) F' `; c2 O& \

" j' B8 y% a" zIn Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

5 m# Y; S1 n; [' L% g" V* x0 b& S1 s' N3 o+ v: X
oh really...
3 Z6 o7 h# Q) v4 D+ ~) H" V: ]hahhaa, thx a lot^^"
. Z. @7 A0 u$ ^' H5 z1 pi didn't watch ch.2

springspring

挺出名，在偶理學的問題4 ^  U( |; [2 j1 \" P4 K
: S! _3 C2 l* F& ]$ Y8 g( ?* t
當然這是個假設性問題
+ s/ o+ {9 D4 U+ ^但將人數倍大
6 ^) Q( ?# k+ C" [1 D+ I- t" e% R- I例如是十個一個，到一百個一個，到一千個一個
: u  Q6 |3 K" e3 z8 e(情況可以換作其他)% `4 R$ H: C( r2 H- y  z1 \
始終有條界線

easonwing

絕情谷既問題...5 E* D3 L3 }, j! h( |( M
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...: X/ o$ Q# N, T5 u  E+ W5 d' u
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

easonwing

Originally posted by easonwing at 2005-4-27 12:12 PM:
7 G) T& o* s# C絕情谷既問題.../ K2 i* N4 x! M+ U
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...- J3 J" \1 e* e. B0 c
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

" W5 Z, i/ e: J& o- f8 \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
  b+ G* o2 x& x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8 Q+ u( @7 M. K  m* U
但是諗深一層,咁樣真係好像唔係好o岩+ x, W. o* E6 k1 \9 u; c
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
% Q  ?* @$ N& k* D其實到底人數的多與少值唔值得去考慮呢
8 c& s0 D7 a: T
" |: v! ?6 u3 O+ O3 j! D. i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& J7 h8 f7 ]. T0 m! F
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:
. e3 o, Z0 S. o# C1 J( B  b2 K3 o6 F其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多 ...

0 R0 r! G* e  l% G7 `9 ?

& X# |, Z. h( K0 ^haha, srfqt1兄, 我們終能於球場外達成一致的睇法, 哈, 相當有趣
) s6 I, |" D8 q- {* {! t" F. J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....% l0 Y& p3 Y$ S% u2 O) c6 u, W

- n2 ?. e9 p* a8 ~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
" X* w, J. x. d" B3 J- j% s- xyes, my reason is helping more
' F2 B: b' q# [: V( x( Sfor this sudden and short period, i dun think i can have so much time to think the background!; t) O/ r5 N( h7 ~% u2 m' [0 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
$ W9 a7 Y+ f' H0 q& h) S- v  Pbecause no matter the rail is using or not, i think also no gd to play in that place, right?2 ~3 M* `: Z, _' g, f
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!!!2 r' z* e) |# L8 r/ J& Z
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!5 d+ S/ t. _6 C- l+ I6 @2 Z# y2 ~
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~~
" y! z3 k- r' C/ P! t6 j3 |, j$ [當我見到呢D咁危急o既事情~~9 p) S2 }# v3 i- _% @+ D3 X; k
我冇可能可以好理性去諗個後果~~
) l5 Q% J, Q$ m4 ?8 O. F  x& c正常黎講一定係以人數為先~~4 j; i7 ~& V% c4 f7 {5 ?
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~~
) N# p! f6 U  t! X3 R0 ^! U% 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~~
% n) e6 a1 f: Y5 e3 t2 p; ~% P$ w* {+ ^0 \但如果o係當時o既情況中~~- |6 G8 C* W/ v1 k6 I: i* P$ k* P
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）