Nah cus if you have 3 of them you have the chance of getting 2 of them to live assuming you give 2 of them the same treatment. That's also if you get lucky. It's all about chance. I rather at least one of them lives than they all die.
You can either take a 50/50 shot of saving a million people's lives or a certainty of saving one person's life. You would really choose the certainty of one person's survival?
The question you're not asking is the fact that is there still only 2 treatments? If so give 50% of the people one, and 50% to the other. Then you still have the chance of 50% of the people surviving instead of them all dying.
You've got to be kidding me. You would really deny a massive group of people a real chance of survival just so you can save one person? I mean, we're not even talking about a special person to you like a loved one, we're talking about a random person off the street, you would save their life rather than taking a 50/50 shot at saving all those people?
What if it was a 90% chance of saving a million people vs. saving one person for sure?
I agree with lightspeed555 though, it was an easy decision because of the circumstances. Of course one dies, but one lives too. If you choose for them both to die it sucks, then you feel worse. At least you still have one. Which is better than none. 1 is always better than none when life is involved.
I want this video on my C2600 unit.
levishort36 1 month ago
This vid is popular on Sanaa
marcuswlnd3 1 month ago
My decision stays the same.
somechick73 3 years ago
you're kidding???
So even if it was a 50/50 for like a million people's lives, you'd still let the vast majority of them die just to ensure the survival of one person?
Mozza314 3 years ago
Nah cus if you have 3 of them you have the chance of getting 2 of them to live assuming you give 2 of them the same treatment. That's also if you get lucky. It's all about chance. I rather at least one of them lives than they all die.
somechick73 3 years ago
Are you sure you understand what I'm asking?
You can either take a 50/50 shot of saving a million people's lives or a certainty of saving one person's life. You would really choose the certainty of one person's survival?
Mozza314 3 years ago
The question you're not asking is the fact that is there still only 2 treatments? If so give 50% of the people one, and 50% to the other. Then you still have the chance of 50% of the people surviving instead of them all dying.
somechick73 3 years ago
No, listen. It doesn't matter whether there's a supporting story or not. Forget about the medical treatments and whatnot.
Option 1: 50% X live/ 50% X die (meaning all of them live or all of them die)
Option 2: 100% 1 lives X-1 die (meaning all except one die)
How large does X have to be for you to choose option one?
Mozza314 3 years ago
Sorry but no matter how hard you try you will not sway me.
somechick73 3 years ago
You've got to be kidding me. You would really deny a massive group of people a real chance of survival just so you can save one person? I mean, we're not even talking about a special person to you like a loved one, we're talking about a random person off the street, you would save their life rather than taking a 50/50 shot at saving all those people?
What if it was a 90% chance of saving a million people vs. saving one person for sure?
Mozza314 3 years ago
It's still better to have one then to lose all 3.
somechick73 3 years ago
Wow really, ok then...
How about -
Option 1: 50% X live/ 50% X die
Option 2: 100% 1 lives X-1 die
How large does X have to be for you to choose option one?
Mozza314 3 years ago
I agree with lightspeed555 though, it was an easy decision because of the circumstances. Of course one dies, but one lives too. If you choose for them both to die it sucks, then you feel worse. At least you still have one. Which is better than none. 1 is always better than none when life is involved.
somechick73 3 years ago
So, what about with the 50% 3 live/50% 3 die vs. 100% that one lives variant?
btw - thanks for all the comments :-D
Mozza314 3 years ago