Chingy

Originally posted by crap at 2005-4-27 01:20 AM:6 U, A0 b7 [4 W' O9 b0 t

4 k# d6 }0 G6 M! N6 `6 d- x$ p$ }0 M( R0 B' z- T" B" M& ?
我都覺得錯不在他們, 是他們的父母 ...

; p' c1 n( ?& Q% L& C# T4 w8 l( x  p

9 T( ~8 I4 c8 h# G  h3 j2 PIn Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

crap

Originally posted by Chingy at 2005-4-27 07:12 AM:
2 [# K5 h; A3 U. K& \$ U& ]
! j: W( U. U/ R8 J: V% w0 `, @! ?# ]  E$ c* U
In Spider-Man 2.Spider man did stop a train

$ T. `  b4 v9 B( y( F
/ G" f; r! ?: U
oh really...
+ S+ _9 J% |1 E9 ^- W5 Khahhaa, thx a lot^^"0 R$ O4 S7 c; h8 i) d+ t( n
i didn't watch ch.2

springspring

挺出名，在偶理學的問題
5 o/ b8 _6 d* M6 J. w
* j. G8 n5 \8 p當然這是個假設性問題# ]+ {; M0 u* E: F  {1 g4 }. ^- r
但將人數倍大' l' x  u$ `. W; A& o+ j4 e5 F
例如是十個一個，到一百個一個，到一千個一個
3 j  H" F6 U$ b(情況可以換作其他)5 N4 i! L) @: S' V  D
始終有條界線

easonwing

絕情谷既問題...- R% K7 O" I/ t1 V* e
如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...5 D, I! \# ?/ q$ ~+ x/ N
如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

easonwing

Originally posted by easonwing at 2005-4-27 12:12 PM:
5 z" v: T! E3 b絕情谷既問題...
- j1 V$ t+ k, B8 v  x如果一個人個邊係我親人,我會好自私咁求佢...
; j0 ?+ B& P' `如果唔係親人,我會殺人警百...

0 X, D) b3 T& i0 P; Y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& g' |0 o4 _) a; x9 w. F; L( v
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
9 X9 L% Q% m+ d8 d7 o但是諗深一層,咁樣真係好像唔係好o岩
, q! K) }- S! A# _- Y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2 m5 i: j+ o' x$ N: a* @2 ]2 D
其實到底人數的多與少值唔值得去考慮呢
( F% k& v% [  U  \& A2 Q" U; p7 Y+ s: s1 i, `' K. b* h$ x
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
" W) \7 Q) N( y# c3 B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:
* j+ s& N8 l1 S# f$ z其實我最初係即刻諗要救多d人,救得愈多 ...

$ G- n! Y7 i3 x. L0 M8 ]. |8 N( }: ]# E) c6 ]8 E" M
haha, srfqt1兄, 我們終能於球場外達成一致的睇法, 哈, 相當有趣
, c$ K* g9 Y( X& T& N5 z, 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....; r! j1 h2 a  w& k
9 w5 {1 d$ I; z
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
* ^# q5 I, o! b: |( L% l0 @4 Iyes, my reason is helping more$ g( o/ ~$ @% @8 q7 ]4 w+ N
for this sudden and short period, i dun think i can have so much time to think the background!8 A5 }/ }1 y" E( f
if saying that child obey the rule but others are not, i think this is not a very good reason to help that child
& O4 F; J+ d& `  L  x+ gbecause no matter the rail is using or not, i think also no gd to play in that place, right?
( W+ K% q, \" C1 zalso 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!!!# X& e8 |5 {. r$ z, E# 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!2 |: M3 x0 C) b
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~~
2 E5 Y% u! e) t$ Q3 h8 V3 f$ h' M5 K當我見到呢D咁危急o既事情~~, o( [1 D% g& J7 ~! K3 A9 ]
我冇可能可以好理性去諗個後果~~+ U& y9 C' z7 ]5 e( |
正常黎講一定係以人數為先~~+ O6 {& g7 D/ W' 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~~- F5 o1 D4 j, P# J1 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~~$ T7 \9 Z3 r6 V9 L. a4 p5 @
但如果o係當時o既情況中~~  L6 v9 V; r. A0 w
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）