Chingy

Originally posted by crap at 2005-4-27 01:20 AM:
- |9 f/ h& _, T: i. ~& ~6 [  {$ L% a) V8 `3 Q9 P1 e6 K

; m+ R+ N* N/ z9 w  ?我都覺得錯不在他們, 是他們的父母 ...

; V: c4 q6 ~, O( `7 z+ l+ O! c, A7 K+ T1 n
In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

crap

Originally posted by Chingy at 2005-4-27 07:12 AM:
+ O; Y" Q# i% R1 y: e$ |! D
; s* m' H7 e; H& s0 Q" B. Y% e4 X  }! R. j
In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

% ^% I0 l+ X# a( R

: l0 p+ Y3 D/ }) qoh really...
- O! N6 [) J! Ahahhaa, thx a lot^^"
' b5 j, J4 O2 i7 Q9 C2 d1 {$ mi didn't watch ch.2

springspring

挺出名，在偶理學的問題
$ x, _/ m$ n3 N  p; p' g: G2 s) Q- z: j" o" A( {
當然這是個假設性問題( d% \6 e! ?* B" h6 I. {5 n  _
但將人數倍大
; q( R+ I2 x, C( |! a1 K/ i1 Z4 n0 b例如是十個一個，到一百個一個，到一千個一個) \0 \  _0 ^/ H6 J. D! ~# t+ |! s- @
(情況可以換作其他)
% D2 U) y) r! z5 U+ N0 p始終有條界線

easonwing

絕情谷既問題...) @  o+ ~* K. Z# G# F3 P- n
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...7 M/ r; W& p+ E$ u* u. 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:
6 h4 v( O4 T6 r( S; Y+ R絕情谷既問題...
+ y( ~  U; V6 ^  F% B# t如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...2 r+ ^; r4 ]7 o& a- W/ _6 N
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

/ |, |/ ~0 w- x( d8 z) L& z7 k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; @3 p. Y4 @) Q' Q' c" d3 e
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 U+ c  N- W# `
但是諗深一層,咁樣真係好像唔係好o岩7 T/ P" p( q$ b+ o( \$ o$ r
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
& U. Z% o0 W6 k  P* _4 I其實到底人數的多與少值唔值得去考慮呢$ _1 K: Y. H  s

9 D4 V: @6 n0 A; w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
! m: |5 N' D! |8 W" }2 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:: q" z; U9 m# l0 X  x+ N: V
其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多 ...

( B. B' ]$ i7 V  w1 Z6 H! z
0 V, g. m- C* k+ F7 i& ]) a
haha, srfqt1兄, 我們終能於球場外達成一致的睇法, 哈, 相當有趣2 J6 A3 }# f8 P/ h
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....( x7 {( }7 T& p7 q. M" I* K

( N" @" @5 u% M3 e, n& j' 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 child3 b- U. G6 T- ?  B$ w
yes, my reason is helping more! p; H0 [4 @9 s6 ?8 ?
for this sudden and short period, i dun think i can have so much time to think the background!
: F/ y1 b- K; k- q0 ^if saying that child obey the rule but others are not, i think this is not a very good reason to help that child
- d: r1 u4 S* J* E# S5 ~2 wbecause no matter the rail is using or not, i think also no gd to play in that place, right?+ n8 H3 Y2 k% o- E& I& F+ c) l" K
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!!!
" d  R* N* x' D8 C7 n. D  @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!
- t* m! s5 e- m4 i6 Iunder 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~~
: r( N2 j& ]; c) ~+ i0 V  G當我見到呢D咁危急o既事情~~! \! L* X0 l' a& G. U- ]
我冇可能可以好理性去諗個後果~~8 p2 e/ w3 |5 [+ J
正常黎講一定係以人數為先~~
4 ]. F. q7 y8 z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~~
. _* p6 k$ O' ]3 J  y( \" C8 W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~~: }0 C% a5 F: w- f, A0 c! j
但如果o係當時o既情況中~~, [, M- o$ V2 y1 i& H
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）