Chingy

Originally posted by crap at 2005-4-27 01:20 AM:
, k( z) H9 z5 z3 c, y7 s5 T: F' Y5 W5 _. a

# o, S. j# [/ X# W我都覺得錯不在他們, 是他們的父母 ...

' x' i/ h8 {/ R( y/ J! ^% W$ G+ U" A

; S$ J7 k" v* X/ D* Q1 N" gIn Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

crap

Originally posted by Chingy at 2005-4-27 07:12 AM:
9 L$ o# x% G/ l8 Z, X, x
+ l1 ~  L7 t# k8 e+ G* [* {# a3 f% t: I% R4 g& i) S- {9 X
In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

1 R/ b! a& ^) l0 E) z1 T/ u
, z8 X! z  N: F: w1 f+ B! F/ ]oh really...$ O6 y( ]: D. e4 g  `
hahhaa, thx a lot^^"
: v7 U! |; F4 P4 Y8 mi didn't watch ch.2

springspring

挺出名，在偶理學的問題4 |; W9 Y; P% [) N

/ r) j) [4 o' b2 z% _7 f當然這是個假設性問題
4 E; v! r- n3 h8 z* o! T$ d9 Y但將人數倍大
9 P+ `: |* ]- _) C例如是十個一個，到一百個一個，到一千個一個
3 W# q+ T; C. v  w(情況可以換作其他)
$ s1 o# G6 i. L2 L" T始終有條界線

easonwing

絕情谷既問題...
) S  j3 K7 y" `6 r如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...
( H; _* x+ I- D1 T: Y! 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:
6 O) |; c7 }5 k: t& u" q1 F絕情谷既問題...* I3 D- Y0 E: ^$ o
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...
$ K! C( w& b, D% F6 S0 Q( V如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

2 _, @8 a2 S! g+ y+ D5 i% w
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 }# F* l( y/ \9 w4 m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. R" Y9 i  ^3 n, n
但是諗深一層,咁樣真係好像唔係好o岩0 e8 [. k4 n- 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
6 y' {- d- S) [; f2 F* U1 k其實到底人數的多與少值唔值得去考慮呢
. ?/ [6 q' x/ Q6 M. |% G, K7 v1 `2 f$ L" z" B* b2 n7 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
( }, L* p3 P+ 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:2 c: _: d- n  ]9 b7 {5 m
其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多 ...

7 N* b# K1 i1 q/ G; {9 ^0 `5 p

" j  u+ G# K3 @# D/ ohaha, srfqt1兄, 我們終能於球場外達成一致的睇法, 哈, 相當有趣
- U/ `- `4 P- z" x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....0 C, A* {: A, M6 f: p- f9 r
7 T  V. g% q1 A
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" |5 m; T# Q+ x$ e2 V$ x% i4 c: o3 o
yes, my reason is helping more
8 J2 s$ {$ d+ t3 {6 p! n0 pfor this sudden and short period, i dun think i can have so much time to think the background!6 l! Q9 m% R! i7 c# Y' J. @( Q2 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# _$ x% m' S9 |0 e& S6 |
because no matter the rail is using or not, i think also no gd to play in that place, right?
# v$ B( f" p* [7 H: valso 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!!!5 w7 z+ ^8 a- \$ ]! Q
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!
' e* H  J3 I/ a# B) O% Munder 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~~
4 K4 `5 @  L+ b8 _當我見到呢D咁危急o既事情~~' @% i0 E7 l9 y% j. R5 P0 O+ L8 d/ k
我冇可能可以好理性去諗個後果~~
0 w& q% H1 B; p) p" l* L; T正常黎講一定係以人數為先~~
9 \9 U5 Z& R- B$ P! }7 L7 v' q# k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~~8 j& B8 l8 i/ ]6 N% r$ O* F
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~~/ ~% r5 M$ ]5 x! |; Z: w( _& C! w
但如果o係當時o既情況中~~
8 g. w3 {8 Y0 [% T; d  @) ]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）