It's just a matter of probability. If people generally suffer variably then generally a larger group is more likely to contain someone who suffers higher than someone in a smaller group.

(October 30, 2010 at 9:45 am)Zen Badger Wrote: You need to be more specific about the humans.

If you had said there were 10 cathoholic priests or 10 imans on the track that would be another thing entirely.

Can the train back up after running over the priests and imams?

I would choose the ducks, becuase as far as I am aware, ducks have done nothing wrong.

(October 30, 2010 at 9:17 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: Well it's probably not so uncomfotable for most people around here, or most people period.
There is a train hurtling down the tracks towards 10 people, who are unable to escape. You can divert the train onto another set of tracks, but this set has 10 ducks on it, who are also unable to escape.
Which would you choose to survive?
And before you select the so called obvious answer, ask yourself why are people more important than ducks!

Divert the train toward the ducks.
Then yell "Toot! Toot! and the idiots standing on the other track will all get scared to death.
There then, you got all twenty.

People are more fun than ducks because they understand the concepts of fear and death.
Oh, wait, you said important.
People are more important than ducks because they understand that "duck!" means something bad is going to happen, and it's important for an innocent victim to be aware of impending doom.

(October 30, 2010 at 9:17 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: Well it's probably not so uncomfotable for most people around here, or most people period.

There is a train hurtling down the tracks towards 10 people, who are unable to escape. You can divert the train onto another set of tracks, but this set has 10 ducks on it, who are also unable to escape.

Which would you choose to survive?

And before you select the so called obvious answer, ask yourself why are people more important than ducks!

I would save the ten people, I have a reason to promote a desire to save humans over ducks (or any animal) as it is a desire that is one that tends to promote the desire to live, and since I desire to live promoting the desire to chose the humans over the ducks is in my best interest. It is also in the best interests of everyone else with the desire to live that I promote the desire to chose humans over ducks.

(October 31, 2010 at 10:15 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: I would choose the ducks, becuase as far as I am aware, ducks have done nothing wrong.

And one can reasonably expect that they won't be able to hurt you if they continue to live.

The humans? They could do pretty much anything if left alive...

You would kill humans before ducks? That's fucked up.

(November 1, 2010 at 10:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: You would kill humans before ducks? That's fucked up.

My initial reaction is to save them... but I'm open to reconsidering if I have a reason. Ie: if they appear to be armed (read: probable soldiers), I will probably revert my decision to save, unless I recognize them as fighting in my benefit.

It's remarkably hard to see people/ducks coming when you're in a train... especially in time to have any sort of long decision process.

Can I divert half the train and get them both?.... naaa that would just possibly derail the train.. oh that would be way cool...



now unwad your panties.. that was a joke

(November 1, 2010 at 11:13 pm)Xyster Wrote: Can I divert half the train and get them both?.... naaa that would just possibly derail the train.. oh that would be way cool...



now unwad your panties.. that was a joke

Actually, it could be done without derailing the train. Just make sure you detatch the rear half close enough that it will coast into one bunch with deadly force.