You “rejected the scenario” but didn’t actually stop the trolley, and now it’s crushing people. Brilliant fucking job there with your out of the box thinking!
And once again you are demonstrating that you don’t understand the difference between a metaphor and a thought experiment. If you don’t think the situation is analogous to the trolley problem, just fucking say that. Trying to create options that don’t exist in the original setup isn’t clever is creative; it’s just a childish way of refusing to deal with the concept being discussed, which in this case is an ethical dilemma.
If you keep voting for the people holding the throttle down, you’re voting for the trolley to keep killing people.
You just don’t like your own “thought expieriment” ran to the logical conclusion.
Our government purports to be for and by the people. So, we voted for the trolley to kill people, rather than NOT let the trolley keep mowing over group A or B.
In the end, this isn’t a thought experiment. Our government is killing people, not thought experiements.
Who did you vote for, comrade? Sure seems like you care more about using dead people as a prop than you do about stopping others from suffering the same fate.
You “rejected the scenario” but didn’t actually stop the trolley, and now it’s crushing people. Brilliant fucking job there with your out of the box thinking!
So, why don’t you help me stop the trolley from killing anyone, instead of blaming me that you keep mashing down the throttle?
Wow you really don’t understand the trolley problem I guess. Neither of us is in control of the throttle.
Then let’s kill the ones with their feet in it, instead of wasting time deciding which lives are more important!!!
Jesus, the trolley only keeps rolling because we agree to let it keep going…
“We” don’t agree to keep it going.
And once again you are demonstrating that you don’t understand the difference between a metaphor and a thought experiment. If you don’t think the situation is analogous to the trolley problem, just fucking say that. Trying to create options that don’t exist in the original setup isn’t clever is creative; it’s just a childish way of refusing to deal with the concept being discussed, which in this case is an ethical dilemma.
If you keep voting for the people holding the throttle down, you’re voting for the trolley to keep killing people.
You just don’t like your own “thought expieriment” ran to the logical conclusion.
Our government purports to be for and by the people. So, we voted for the trolley to kill people, rather than NOT let the trolley keep mowing over group A or B.
In the end, this isn’t a thought experiment. Our government is killing people, not thought experiements.
Who did you vote for, comrade? Sure seems like you care more about using dead people as a prop than you do about stopping others from suffering the same fate.
I voted what my conscience could bear…
Me too. That’s why I voted to stop the guy talking about invading Greenland.