1,743 people were run over while you made this post. But I think you covered it all.

It is also a fine sandwich. Very important to specify that you want a "round egg" when ordering.

The scumbag/coward Trolly made this claim in a place I couldn't respond. How did he come to this conclusion? Because I made a post six months later asking if anyone had ever been in danger - I said I hadn't been.

Being 100 yards from where a truck stopped in a terrorist attack isn't "being in danger". If I was actually trying to play it up, wouldn't I have mentioned this as an example of "being in danger"? If I was actually making it up, wouldn't I have said I was right near the truck's path? That's what people who make things up do.

But like most leftists, you and he are incredibly poor, emotive thinkers. You want something to be true, so it is.

I posted actual screenshots from my phone in the thread where the attack happened. I was obviously there. Trolly is a loser/coward and owes me an apology. As do you.

What kind of beam splitter are you using for your train?

Sure thing buddy.

How much money do you want to bet that I was there? Let's see if you're less of a coward than Trolly.

This is what you guys do - when you lose the argument, which you have, badly, the left goes for desperate character assassination. You're cowards. You'll slink away from this challenge too, because you have no spine.

Don't worry, wil still believes in you.

I'll bet five cents. Or your reputation, whichever has the higher value.

Confirmed coward/loser. Happy to slag off but not willing to put money behind it.

How about $100? Surely even you can afford that. We escrow, then a mod we both trust can review the evidence I give him and make a determination.

If you're sure I'm lying, it's easy money for you, coward. Don't you want to take money off someone you dislike?

Or if money is not your thing, a ban. You and Trolly have wanted me banned for a long time. So the same terms as above, but you and Trolly get banned if I can prove I was there. And I get banned if a mod determines I can't. Deal?

You're already banned from politics, don't think anyone really cares if you continue to tard up SMP.

hi everyone

Welcome to Housewives of SMP.

Take this stuff to PM: Don't mess up DS's Trolley thread with your personal, derailing and juvenile bickering.

Ends now. Any more posts on the subject just get deleted. Then the lever...............

Just delete it all. 13ball started it with his cheap off topic shot, I put him in his place, it's all done

Yeah you need to pay more respect to the theme of this thread

+1 although I get worried about making special requests at McDonalds..

Trolley problems going off the rails ITT.

Simple version of the troll problem

(Posted from a gorgeous beach at Waikoloa Hawaii ...Control your envy if you can)

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Trolley troll problem.

Bw...bw...bwahahaha!

Which could be put more simply by asking if, aside from obvious situations such as those involving family members, serial killers or the one soldier who can translate Arabic or knows medicine, is it ever ethical to save one person rather than two?

Don't think it is, if it needs the same amount of activity. Being passive is a different matter. If that is counted we are "killing" people constantly. But because we aren't doing it actively, it's a different category, not ethically as hard. Letting things have their own course so to say, "don't blame me".

Say the trolley is about to hit two adults and you can switch it to hit a young cute child thus saving two lives and losing one. I would think most people could NOT pull switch. Actively killing a child would cause the maximum personal personal remorse. I also would' think that most people would not criticize them for that choice. So an ethical framework based on personal guilt and societal norms might agree that losing two people versus one was acceptable in this case. Of course there are other ethical frameworks that would disagree.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Logically there should be an inflection point where x=n(y). But because so many variables are involved and complete understanding of the variables are impossible then the problem can only be solved empirically, not logically. You would need hundreds of thousands* of independent interested parties where weights were attached to those most interested** to make the decision to pull the lever. If there weren't time to do this, then no practical answer can be found.

*The number is made up, you may need less or more. Ask a statistician.
**Most interested meaning most interested in those other than themselves and their loved ones ( which should be obvious when I qualified by saying independent)

And the other way around: with the trolley heading for killing the child? Do you think people in general would switch to kill the two adults? I think most wouldn't, including me. You need to choose the least bad of the alternatives. Passivity is paradoxically often the better alternative, within some borders of course. That's why murder is punished harder than neglect leading to death.

In real life there is always present an uncertainty not present in problems like this. Intention is crucial then, because it "focuses evil" (sorry for that expression)

Yes, you have to make a statistical decision. Head count is the best you can come up with without showing subjective pregorative thinking, which may well be wrong. Passivity for getting non-intentional is the other way. Balance between these two.