<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_29_1910207</id>
	<title>German President Refuses To Sign Censorship Law</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259523960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>thetinytoon writes <i>"German federal president Horst K&#246;hler has <a href="http://www.thelocal.de/politics/20091128-23585.html">refused to sign a law to block child pornography</a> that passed Parliament <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/02/2034222/Even-More-Restriction-For-German-Internet">earlier this year</a>, stating that he 'needs more information.' In Germany, the federal president has the right to reject a law only if its passage violated the order mandated by the constitution, or if it is obviously unconstitutional &mdash; he can't veto a law simply because he disagrees with it. The law was passed under a coalition government, but a different coalition took power before the law reached the president's desk. Political observers guess that the political parties would like to get rid of the law without losing face, but since it has already passed the Parliament, they can't simply abandon it."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>thetinytoon writes " German federal president Horst K   hler has refused to sign a law to block child pornography that passed Parliament earlier this year , stating that he 'needs more information .
' In Germany , the federal president has the right to reject a law only if its passage violated the order mandated by the constitution , or if it is obviously unconstitutional    he ca n't veto a law simply because he disagrees with it .
The law was passed under a coalition government , but a different coalition took power before the law reached the president 's desk .
Political observers guess that the political parties would like to get rid of the law without losing face , but since it has already passed the Parliament , they ca n't simply abandon it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thetinytoon writes "German federal president Horst Köhler has refused to sign a law to block child pornography that passed Parliament earlier this year, stating that he 'needs more information.
' In Germany, the federal president has the right to reject a law only if its passage violated the order mandated by the constitution, or if it is obviously unconstitutional — he can't veto a law simply because he disagrees with it.
The law was passed under a coalition government, but a different coalition took power before the law reached the president's desk.
Political observers guess that the political parties would like to get rid of the law without losing face, but since it has already passed the Parliament, they can't simply abandon it.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265272</id>
	<title>Or he is a Muslim</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259504220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as Prophet Muhammad is well-known of raping 8-years-old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as Prophet Muhammad is well-known of raping 8-years-old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as Prophet Muhammad is well-known of raping 8-years-old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263678</id>
	<title>Re:Censorship?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259488500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>m-w.com:</p><p>Main Entry: 2censor<br>Function: transitive verb<br>Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring \sen(t)-s-ri, sen(t)s-ri\<br>Date: 1882</p><p>: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable </p><p>Main Entry: censorship<br>Pronunciation: \sen(t)-sr-ship\<br>Function: noun<br>Date: circa 1591</p><p>1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively<br>2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor<br>3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor</p><p>See definition of censorship, 1 a.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>m-w.com : Main Entry : 2censorFunction : transitive verbInflected Form ( s ) : censored ; censoring \ sen ( t ) -s-ri , sen ( t ) s-ri \ Date : 1882 : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable Main Entry : censorshipPronunciation : \ sen ( t ) -sr-ship \ Function : nounDate : circa 15911 a : the institution , system , or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors ; especially : censorial control exercised repressively2 : the office , power , or term of a Roman censor3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censorSee definition of censorship , 1 a .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>m-w.com:Main Entry: 2censorFunction: transitive verbInflected Form(s): censored; censoring \sen(t)-s-ri, sen(t)s-ri\Date: 1882: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable Main Entry: censorshipPronunciation: \sen(t)-sr-ship\Function: nounDate: circa 15911 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censorSee definition of censorship, 1 a.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264512</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1259496180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't lived in Germany, but I've listened to lectures from an MP and a member of the highest courts about the role of the parliament in their use of force for what it's worth.<br> <br>

The Parliament is almost entirely all powerful in most matters, this is seen as the way to make sure that the governance of the people is done in a democratic fashion as the people making all the choices are representative of the vote of the people. In name it's a "two key" system, although the members of parliament are happy to admit that their key is infinitely bigger. This becomes more interesting in our very recent past, when their courts (which are not elected) suddenly amended the constitution granting parliament a whole new range of powers in dealing with foreign policy that traditionally did not exist.<br> <br>

The biggest difference between Germany and the U.S. (and the U.K., France, Russia, China, and a host of others) is that the entire German governance is based explicitly on the rule of law. In a very real sense the actions of the first half of the 1900s have made them understandably hesitant to give any real power to their executives, or to make it too east to become embroiled in potentially violent situations. Nothing wrong there. What I take offence to, is the placing of a very broad definition of human dignity above the rights of the individual to to express their opinions. This of course was put into place to stop the persecution of weaker groups, but gives the parliament very broad powers to define what speech is offensive to society as a whole. The problem with this is that the criminalizing of divergent viewpoints has served to unite a lot of fringe viewpoints, and the very people that the rules were meant to stop have been gaining power because they feel there's no place for their views in the open. <br> <br>

The public results for most people aren't too terribly different, but the theory of what a good nation is and how to attain it are very different. I know the post is kind of scattered, but it's a broad question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't lived in Germany , but I 've listened to lectures from an MP and a member of the highest courts about the role of the parliament in their use of force for what it 's worth .
The Parliament is almost entirely all powerful in most matters , this is seen as the way to make sure that the governance of the people is done in a democratic fashion as the people making all the choices are representative of the vote of the people .
In name it 's a " two key " system , although the members of parliament are happy to admit that their key is infinitely bigger .
This becomes more interesting in our very recent past , when their courts ( which are not elected ) suddenly amended the constitution granting parliament a whole new range of powers in dealing with foreign policy that traditionally did not exist .
The biggest difference between Germany and the U.S. ( and the U.K. , France , Russia , China , and a host of others ) is that the entire German governance is based explicitly on the rule of law .
In a very real sense the actions of the first half of the 1900s have made them understandably hesitant to give any real power to their executives , or to make it too east to become embroiled in potentially violent situations .
Nothing wrong there .
What I take offence to , is the placing of a very broad definition of human dignity above the rights of the individual to to express their opinions .
This of course was put into place to stop the persecution of weaker groups , but gives the parliament very broad powers to define what speech is offensive to society as a whole .
The problem with this is that the criminalizing of divergent viewpoints has served to unite a lot of fringe viewpoints , and the very people that the rules were meant to stop have been gaining power because they feel there 's no place for their views in the open .
The public results for most people are n't too terribly different , but the theory of what a good nation is and how to attain it are very different .
I know the post is kind of scattered , but it 's a broad question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't lived in Germany, but I've listened to lectures from an MP and a member of the highest courts about the role of the parliament in their use of force for what it's worth.
The Parliament is almost entirely all powerful in most matters, this is seen as the way to make sure that the governance of the people is done in a democratic fashion as the people making all the choices are representative of the vote of the people.
In name it's a "two key" system, although the members of parliament are happy to admit that their key is infinitely bigger.
This becomes more interesting in our very recent past, when their courts (which are not elected) suddenly amended the constitution granting parliament a whole new range of powers in dealing with foreign policy that traditionally did not exist.
The biggest difference between Germany and the U.S. (and the U.K., France, Russia, China, and a host of others) is that the entire German governance is based explicitly on the rule of law.
In a very real sense the actions of the first half of the 1900s have made them understandably hesitant to give any real power to their executives, or to make it too east to become embroiled in potentially violent situations.
Nothing wrong there.
What I take offence to, is the placing of a very broad definition of human dignity above the rights of the individual to to express their opinions.
This of course was put into place to stop the persecution of weaker groups, but gives the parliament very broad powers to define what speech is offensive to society as a whole.
The problem with this is that the criminalizing of divergent viewpoints has served to unite a lot of fringe viewpoints, and the very people that the rules were meant to stop have been gaining power because they feel there's no place for their views in the open.
The public results for most people aren't too terribly different, but the theory of what a good nation is and how to attain it are very different.
I know the post is kind of scattered, but it's a broad question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271660</id>
	<title>Re:Adolf Hitler agrees!</title>
	<author>greenbird</author>
	<datestamp>1259606100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mein Kampf</p></div><p>I've searched two different online printings of "Mein Kampf" for this passage and couldn't find it. Can you direct me to where in "Mein Kampf" it is located?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mein KampfI 've searched two different online printings of " Mein Kampf " for this passage and could n't find it .
Can you direct me to where in " Mein Kampf " it is located ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mein KampfI've searched two different online printings of "Mein Kampf" for this passage and couldn't find it.
Can you direct me to where in "Mein Kampf" it is located?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263654</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259488200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What I'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are, and if anyone knows -WHY- they exist</p></div><p>As I understand it, it's because US Law is based on English Common Law, whereas German law is heavily influenced by Napoleonic law (which was in force there until about a hundred years ago). Napoleonic law leans significantly in favour of the government against the private individual compared to English Common Law. So the differences are (at least in part) down to the outcome of the Napoleonic wars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are , and if anyone knows -WHY- they existAs I understand it , it 's because US Law is based on English Common Law , whereas German law is heavily influenced by Napoleonic law ( which was in force there until about a hundred years ago ) .
Napoleonic law leans significantly in favour of the government against the private individual compared to English Common Law .
So the differences are ( at least in part ) down to the outcome of the Napoleonic wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are, and if anyone knows -WHY- they existAs I understand it, it's because US Law is based on English Common Law, whereas German law is heavily influenced by Napoleonic law (which was in force there until about a hundred years ago).
Napoleonic law leans significantly in favour of the government against the private individual compared to English Common Law.
So the differences are (at least in part) down to the outcome of the Napoleonic wars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269188</id>
	<title>thanks!</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1259591160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the president (CDU) is vetoing the CDU's own law because everyone knows it's unconstitutional and the courts overthrowing it might discredit the CDUs future attempts.  How very reasonable!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the president ( CDU ) is vetoing the CDU 's own law because everyone knows it 's unconstitutional and the courts overthrowing it might discredit the CDUs future attempts .
How very reasonable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the president (CDU) is vetoing the CDU's own law because everyone knows it's unconstitutional and the courts overthrowing it might discredit the CDUs future attempts.
How very reasonable!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268720</id>
	<title>Re:Matter of framing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259584920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if Nazism is bad enough that there's enormous backlash against it in Germany, you shouldn't even NEED to censor it. People can make up their own goddamn minds.</p></div><p>That's what was thought before Hitler gained control. After WWII, it was common belief that people obviously cannot make up their own goddamn minds. Thus, the current German state was constructed in a way to never let this happen again.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Really, all the censorship serves to do is flush it under a rug. The people who want to openly support Nazism [or anything else] should be free to do so, and I should be equally free to deride those people for their beliefs.</p></div><p>One has to say that the law against Nazi symbols is not a censorship law. It is not allowed to wear Nazi symbols, to glorify them or to use them in a similar way. It is however allowed to show them in TV documentaries or the like. The laws are not made in a way that prohibits discussions about the matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if Nazism is bad enough that there 's enormous backlash against it in Germany , you should n't even NEED to censor it .
People can make up their own goddamn minds.That 's what was thought before Hitler gained control .
After WWII , it was common belief that people obviously can not make up their own goddamn minds .
Thus , the current German state was constructed in a way to never let this happen again.Really , all the censorship serves to do is flush it under a rug .
The people who want to openly support Nazism [ or anything else ] should be free to do so , and I should be equally free to deride those people for their beliefs.One has to say that the law against Nazi symbols is not a censorship law .
It is not allowed to wear Nazi symbols , to glorify them or to use them in a similar way .
It is however allowed to show them in TV documentaries or the like .
The laws are not made in a way that prohibits discussions about the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if Nazism is bad enough that there's enormous backlash against it in Germany, you shouldn't even NEED to censor it.
People can make up their own goddamn minds.That's what was thought before Hitler gained control.
After WWII, it was common belief that people obviously cannot make up their own goddamn minds.
Thus, the current German state was constructed in a way to never let this happen again.Really, all the censorship serves to do is flush it under a rug.
The people who want to openly support Nazism [or anything else] should be free to do so, and I should be equally free to deride those people for their beliefs.One has to say that the law against Nazi symbols is not a censorship law.
It is not allowed to wear Nazi symbols, to glorify them or to use them in a similar way.
It is however allowed to show them in TV documentaries or the like.
The laws are not made in a way that prohibits discussions about the matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264812</id>
	<title>Attack Attack!!!</title>
	<author>BancBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1259499060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know it could have been "free speech zones" at DEMOCRAT gatherings too:</p><p> <a href="http://camelsnose.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/what-a-denver-democratic-convention-free-speech-zone-looks-like/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://camelsnose.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/what-a-denver-democratic-convention-free-speech-zone-looks-like/</a> [wordpress.com] </p></div><p>
Did you see this word in the post you are referring to - <b>Republicrat</b>???<br>

I'm thinking the GP was referring to both (very similar) parties.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know it could have been " free speech zones " at DEMOCRAT gatherings too : http : //camelsnose.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/what-a-denver-democratic-convention-free-speech-zone-looks-like/ [ wordpress.com ] Did you see this word in the post you are referring to - Republicrat ? ? ?
I 'm thinking the GP was referring to both ( very similar ) parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know it could have been "free speech zones" at DEMOCRAT gatherings too: http://camelsnose.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/what-a-denver-democratic-convention-free-speech-zone-looks-like/ [wordpress.com] 
Did you see this word in the post you are referring to - Republicrat???
I'm thinking the GP was referring to both (very similar) parties.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263726</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259489220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The president in Germany is absolutely NOT comparable to the president in the US. The German president isn't even elected by the people (but by the parliament), and he's neither a part of the government nor a member of the parliament. He is NOT elected in a general election, which is comparable to the US presidential elections, takes place every four years, and elects a new government (not quite, but that's a different issue...). Thus it kind of makes sense that the president has no political power. The german equivalent to the US president would be the chancellor, who heads the government. Allowing the president to veto a law based on his political opinions would be like choosing random guy X from the population and give him the ultimate decision on a law that's already passed parliament.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The president in Germany is absolutely NOT comparable to the president in the US .
The German president is n't even elected by the people ( but by the parliament ) , and he 's neither a part of the government nor a member of the parliament .
He is NOT elected in a general election , which is comparable to the US presidential elections , takes place every four years , and elects a new government ( not quite , but that 's a different issue... ) .
Thus it kind of makes sense that the president has no political power .
The german equivalent to the US president would be the chancellor , who heads the government .
Allowing the president to veto a law based on his political opinions would be like choosing random guy X from the population and give him the ultimate decision on a law that 's already passed parliament .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The president in Germany is absolutely NOT comparable to the president in the US.
The German president isn't even elected by the people (but by the parliament), and he's neither a part of the government nor a member of the parliament.
He is NOT elected in a general election, which is comparable to the US presidential elections, takes place every four years, and elects a new government (not quite, but that's a different issue...).
Thus it kind of makes sense that the president has no political power.
The german equivalent to the US president would be the chancellor, who heads the government.
Allowing the president to veto a law based on his political opinions would be like choosing random guy X from the population and give him the ultimate decision on a law that's already passed parliament.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454</id>
	<title>Matter of framing</title>
	<author>aaandre</author>
	<datestamp>1259485680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a censorship law pushed through legislation smartly framed as "Blocking Child Pornography." So, when the question comes up, are you against or for child pornography? Of course, the correct question is, are you for or against blanket policy allowing government censorship of the only free/cheap mass information medium in the world under the pretense of protecting children?</p><p>And, in the realm of censorship, Germany seems to have the most sense (amongst Western nations incl. U.S. and England) , probably having already gone through the fiery blindness of mad political rampage in the past.</p><p>For more on framing and how it defines the political scene (esp. in the U.S.) check this <a href="http://is.gd/572RV" title="is.gd">interview</a> [is.gd] with George Lakoff, professor in linguistics. Here's a <a href="http://is.gd/572WB" title="is.gd">list</a> [is.gd] of his lectures on YouTube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a censorship law pushed through legislation smartly framed as " Blocking Child Pornography .
" So , when the question comes up , are you against or for child pornography ?
Of course , the correct question is , are you for or against blanket policy allowing government censorship of the only free/cheap mass information medium in the world under the pretense of protecting children ? And , in the realm of censorship , Germany seems to have the most sense ( amongst Western nations incl .
U.S. and England ) , probably having already gone through the fiery blindness of mad political rampage in the past.For more on framing and how it defines the political scene ( esp .
in the U.S. ) check this interview [ is.gd ] with George Lakoff , professor in linguistics .
Here 's a list [ is.gd ] of his lectures on YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a censorship law pushed through legislation smartly framed as "Blocking Child Pornography.
" So, when the question comes up, are you against or for child pornography?
Of course, the correct question is, are you for or against blanket policy allowing government censorship of the only free/cheap mass information medium in the world under the pretense of protecting children?And, in the realm of censorship, Germany seems to have the most sense (amongst Western nations incl.
U.S. and England) , probably having already gone through the fiery blindness of mad political rampage in the past.For more on framing and how it defines the political scene (esp.
in the U.S.) check this interview [is.gd] with George Lakoff, professor in linguistics.
Here's a list [is.gd] of his lectures on YouTube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264858</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259499420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC Germany has a bicameral system where a second chamber has exactly this veto right position the US president has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC Germany has a bicameral system where a second chamber has exactly this veto right position the US president has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC Germany has a bicameral system where a second chamber has exactly this veto right position the US president has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271850</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, freedom of expression is alive and well in Germany...unless you're a video game. Then you have to replace all people with robots and turn blood green. Cut swastikas out of World War 2 games. Commandos is banned. Wolfenstein 3D is banned. Okay, those have nazi references, that's at least consistent with your post. But: Condemned is banned, Manhunt is banned, Mortal Kombat is banned. Gears of War and Dead Rising are banned. Isn't there a law being considered that will basically kill German game developers?</p><p>You guys aren't as bad as some countries, but you're certainly no angels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , freedom of expression is alive and well in Germany...unless you 're a video game .
Then you have to replace all people with robots and turn blood green .
Cut swastikas out of World War 2 games .
Commandos is banned .
Wolfenstein 3D is banned .
Okay , those have nazi references , that 's at least consistent with your post .
But : Condemned is banned , Manhunt is banned , Mortal Kombat is banned .
Gears of War and Dead Rising are banned .
Is n't there a law being considered that will basically kill German game developers ? You guys are n't as bad as some countries , but you 're certainly no angels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, freedom of expression is alive and well in Germany...unless you're a video game.
Then you have to replace all people with robots and turn blood green.
Cut swastikas out of World War 2 games.
Commandos is banned.
Wolfenstein 3D is banned.
Okay, those have nazi references, that's at least consistent with your post.
But: Condemned is banned, Manhunt is banned, Mortal Kombat is banned.
Gears of War and Dead Rising are banned.
Isn't there a law being considered that will basically kill German game developers?You guys aren't as bad as some countries, but you're certainly no angels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264894</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>Sasayaki</author>
	<datestamp>1259499780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only thing that might have changed in the last 50 years is that child porn may be more accessible now that it was before</p></div><p>Certainly true. However, one thing I will point out is that while the accessibility of child porn has dramatically increased, before the Internet it was practically non-existent. I mean, where were the big child porn busts in the 50's and the 40's? 20's? There were none, because there was no porn to bust. Instead, people went out and basically had sex with kids. Particularly, say, three hundred years ago (not long ago in the scheme of things)- if you felt that way, then you just did it, since the chances of you getting caught were extremely slim and you could just pay anyone you wanted to hush up (including the cops). There wasn't any child pornography because people could get "the real thing". It's only in modern times that such things have become monstrous in the eyes of the public, and kiddy porn has a much lower chance of getting you arrested vs fiddling up some kids, so...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that might have changed in the last 50 years is that child porn may be more accessible now that it was beforeCertainly true .
However , one thing I will point out is that while the accessibility of child porn has dramatically increased , before the Internet it was practically non-existent .
I mean , where were the big child porn busts in the 50 's and the 40 's ?
20 's ? There were none , because there was no porn to bust .
Instead , people went out and basically had sex with kids .
Particularly , say , three hundred years ago ( not long ago in the scheme of things ) - if you felt that way , then you just did it , since the chances of you getting caught were extremely slim and you could just pay anyone you wanted to hush up ( including the cops ) .
There was n't any child pornography because people could get " the real thing " .
It 's only in modern times that such things have become monstrous in the eyes of the public , and kiddy porn has a much lower chance of getting you arrested vs fiddling up some kids , so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that might have changed in the last 50 years is that child porn may be more accessible now that it was beforeCertainly true.
However, one thing I will point out is that while the accessibility of child porn has dramatically increased, before the Internet it was practically non-existent.
I mean, where were the big child porn busts in the 50's and the 40's?
20's? There were none, because there was no porn to bust.
Instead, people went out and basically had sex with kids.
Particularly, say, three hundred years ago (not long ago in the scheme of things)- if you felt that way, then you just did it, since the chances of you getting caught were extremely slim and you could just pay anyone you wanted to hush up (including the cops).
There wasn't any child pornography because people could get "the real thing".
It's only in modern times that such things have become monstrous in the eyes of the public, and kiddy porn has a much lower chance of getting you arrested vs fiddling up some kids, so...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263680</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259488560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Either that OR he wants to make sure that the censorship law is congruent with the German constitution.</p></div><p>so child porn is ok as long as there is no swastika in it ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either that OR he wants to make sure that the censorship law is congruent with the German constitution.so child porn is ok as long as there is no swastika in it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either that OR he wants to make sure that the censorship law is congruent with the German constitution.so child porn is ok as long as there is no swastika in it ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264798</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259498940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a funny third possibility: He actually gives a shit about laws being "legal".</p><p>I know, what an alien, outlandish and utterly outdated concept, but he just might consider the Basic Law of Germany more than a non-committal guideline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a funny third possibility : He actually gives a shit about laws being " legal " .I know , what an alien , outlandish and utterly outdated concept , but he just might consider the Basic Law of Germany more than a non-committal guideline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a funny third possibility: He actually gives a shit about laws being "legal".I know, what an alien, outlandish and utterly outdated concept, but he just might consider the Basic Law of Germany more than a non-committal guideline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</id>
	<title>What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>gilgongo</author>
	<datestamp>1259490480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand what the hell is going in modern society that we suddenly think there are hoards of paedophiles everywhere. The only thing that might have changed in the last 50 years is that child porn may be more accessible now that it was before, but child porn doesn't make people into paedophiles any more than Kylie Minogue makes people homosexual.</p><p>I would (sort of) understand it if this was just a stupid legislative thing - ie making laws to ban child porn in order to get more powers to spy on ordinary people, etc. but the thing is that the general public seem to be obsessed by it over the past 10 years.</p><p>Today is by 43rd birthday. As I played with my 9 year old son, I thought about what my life was like when I was his age. The first thing that struck me was that (were it not for the rain here in London), he'd be out playing in the streets with his mates, not in some kind of house arrest situation where he has to have at least one parent with him at all times when he leaves the house.</p><p>It's fucking sad. And it makes me angry that politicians pander to irrelevant crap like child porn and paedophiles. Yes, paedophiles exist, and so does child porn, but the NUMBER of paedophiles hasn't increased, has it? If it has, nobody's saying why. And even if it has, then the effect of 0.00001\% of the population having a predilection for children is frankly irrelevant compared to dangers such as traffic accidents, non-sexual abuse, violence and murder, which - incidentally - hasn't increased either!</p><p>What the hell is going on???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand what the hell is going in modern society that we suddenly think there are hoards of paedophiles everywhere .
The only thing that might have changed in the last 50 years is that child porn may be more accessible now that it was before , but child porn does n't make people into paedophiles any more than Kylie Minogue makes people homosexual.I would ( sort of ) understand it if this was just a stupid legislative thing - ie making laws to ban child porn in order to get more powers to spy on ordinary people , etc .
but the thing is that the general public seem to be obsessed by it over the past 10 years.Today is by 43rd birthday .
As I played with my 9 year old son , I thought about what my life was like when I was his age .
The first thing that struck me was that ( were it not for the rain here in London ) , he 'd be out playing in the streets with his mates , not in some kind of house arrest situation where he has to have at least one parent with him at all times when he leaves the house.It 's fucking sad .
And it makes me angry that politicians pander to irrelevant crap like child porn and paedophiles .
Yes , paedophiles exist , and so does child porn , but the NUMBER of paedophiles has n't increased , has it ?
If it has , nobody 's saying why .
And even if it has , then the effect of 0.00001 \ % of the population having a predilection for children is frankly irrelevant compared to dangers such as traffic accidents , non-sexual abuse , violence and murder , which - incidentally - has n't increased either ! What the hell is going on ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand what the hell is going in modern society that we suddenly think there are hoards of paedophiles everywhere.
The only thing that might have changed in the last 50 years is that child porn may be more accessible now that it was before, but child porn doesn't make people into paedophiles any more than Kylie Minogue makes people homosexual.I would (sort of) understand it if this was just a stupid legislative thing - ie making laws to ban child porn in order to get more powers to spy on ordinary people, etc.
but the thing is that the general public seem to be obsessed by it over the past 10 years.Today is by 43rd birthday.
As I played with my 9 year old son, I thought about what my life was like when I was his age.
The first thing that struck me was that (were it not for the rain here in London), he'd be out playing in the streets with his mates, not in some kind of house arrest situation where he has to have at least one parent with him at all times when he leaves the house.It's fucking sad.
And it makes me angry that politicians pander to irrelevant crap like child porn and paedophiles.
Yes, paedophiles exist, and so does child porn, but the NUMBER of paedophiles hasn't increased, has it?
If it has, nobody's saying why.
And even if it has, then the effect of 0.00001\% of the population having a predilection for children is frankly irrelevant compared to dangers such as traffic accidents, non-sexual abuse, violence and murder, which - incidentally - hasn't increased either!What the hell is going on??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265392</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>iris-n</author>
	<datestamp>1259505900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's probably a kind of Godwin by now, but <a href="http://xkcd.com/301/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/301/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably a kind of Godwin by now , but http : //xkcd.com/301/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably a kind of Godwin by now, but http://xkcd.com/301/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265146</id>
	<title>achtung!</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1259502420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>denken Sie an die Kinder!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>denken Sie an die Kinder !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>denken Sie an die Kinder!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264788</id>
	<title>Re:Adolf Hitler agrees!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259498820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.  -- Mein Kampf</p></div><p>Wait did you bring Hitler into a discussion without making the argument jump the shark?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people .
As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children , the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation .
-- Mein KampfWait did you bring Hitler into a discussion without making the argument jump the shark ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people.
As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
-- Mein KampfWait did you bring Hitler into a discussion without making the argument jump the shark?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265340</id>
	<title>Re:Sexual attraction to children is not uncommon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259505240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, which pedo website did you get the quotes from?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , which pedo website did you get the quotes from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, which pedo website did you get the quotes from?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265962</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1259510760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We value our children much more highly.</p></div><p>I don't think that's true.</p><p>We're more VOCAL about it now, but do you honestly mean to say people of this generation value their children more than their parents value them?</p><p>That's absurd.  We have more laws, but the crazy laws like this don't protect children, and they never have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We value our children much more highly.I do n't think that 's true.We 're more VOCAL about it now , but do you honestly mean to say people of this generation value their children more than their parents value them ? That 's absurd .
We have more laws , but the crazy laws like this do n't protect children , and they never have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We value our children much more highly.I don't think that's true.We're more VOCAL about it now, but do you honestly mean to say people of this generation value their children more than their parents value them?That's absurd.
We have more laws, but the crazy laws like this don't protect children, and they never have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267918</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>mjbkinx</author>
	<datestamp>1259573400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Short answer: You've just witnessed how your country went from a democracy to fascism in just a few years, murdered millions of its own citizens and killed many more millions across the continent. Now you've been given the task of writing a new constitution. What do you do?</p><p>Given the then very recent atrocities, the first thing you write down is that <i>Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.</i> With that out of the way, you analyze what went wrong with the old constitution, and decide the new constitution must be resistant against attempts to abolish it or alter its basic principles. Part of that is that some articles can't have their essential meaning changed, others can't be changed at all. But it goes further -- organizations that have the goal to abolish the constitution can be banned (along with symbols that represent them), and if the Federal Constitutional Court agrees, even parties (so far a successor party of the NSDAP and a communist party in the 50s.) Also, no speech that is capable of inciting violence against minorities.</p><p>Those are the limits. I realize some of the consequences sound ridiculous to Americans, but you have to see it in the historical context. Also, some impressions Americans often have about those limitations are simply not true. For example, showing swastikas. I've seen plenty of swastikas in history class or in movies. That's perfectly legal (education/art). A T-shirt with the NSDAP flag, on the other hand, can indeed get you a fine of several hundred euros.</p><p>In practice, Freedom of Expression is alive and well in Germany (unless you're a Nazi.) There are no <i>beeps</i> during TV shows and wardrobe malfunctions are something to laugh about. You're much less likely to get sued, and civil and criminal sentences are much lower (incarceration rate is a bit over a tenth of the US'.) Nobody raises an eyebrow when you proclaim that you're an Atheist and several openly gay politicians have been elected into high offices (two equivalent to a governor and our new Foreign Minister/Vice Chancellor, for example.)</p><p>When you read that the president can't veto a law, keep in mind that he's merely the Head of State. The US President is also the Head of Government, and elected directly (in practice.) Sufficient to say that last time those positions were held by the same person, it didn't work out that well for us. The parliament elects the chancellor, and the parliament can also elect a new one at any time. The ability to get rid of a Head of Government, without an "impeachable offense", can be useful at times. The parliament has proportional representation (with the limitation that only parties that get &gt;5\% of the votes are taken into account), so it almost never happens that a single party can form the government on its own, and those coalitions can break apart to form a new government with other parties. Finally, the courts usually do a very good job, some attempts to introduce particularly stupid laws you may have heard about <a href="http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/press/bvg08-022en.html" title="bundesverf...gericht.de">backfire</a> [bundesverf...gericht.de] and we get a new Fundamental Right out of it. </p><p>One more thing that may be important: Election campaigns, particularly financing, work differently. Parties and their candidates get most of their financing out of tax money, depending on how many votes they had in the last elections, and membership fees. There's a limited number of campaign spot slots available that get assigned the same way, you can't just buy more. Also, no PACs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Short answer : You 've just witnessed how your country went from a democracy to fascism in just a few years , murdered millions of its own citizens and killed many more millions across the continent .
Now you 've been given the task of writing a new constitution .
What do you do ? Given the then very recent atrocities , the first thing you write down is that Human dignity shall be inviolable .
To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority .
With that out of the way , you analyze what went wrong with the old constitution , and decide the new constitution must be resistant against attempts to abolish it or alter its basic principles .
Part of that is that some articles ca n't have their essential meaning changed , others ca n't be changed at all .
But it goes further -- organizations that have the goal to abolish the constitution can be banned ( along with symbols that represent them ) , and if the Federal Constitutional Court agrees , even parties ( so far a successor party of the NSDAP and a communist party in the 50s .
) Also , no speech that is capable of inciting violence against minorities.Those are the limits .
I realize some of the consequences sound ridiculous to Americans , but you have to see it in the historical context .
Also , some impressions Americans often have about those limitations are simply not true .
For example , showing swastikas .
I 've seen plenty of swastikas in history class or in movies .
That 's perfectly legal ( education/art ) .
A T-shirt with the NSDAP flag , on the other hand , can indeed get you a fine of several hundred euros.In practice , Freedom of Expression is alive and well in Germany ( unless you 're a Nazi .
) There are no beeps during TV shows and wardrobe malfunctions are something to laugh about .
You 're much less likely to get sued , and civil and criminal sentences are much lower ( incarceration rate is a bit over a tenth of the US' .
) Nobody raises an eyebrow when you proclaim that you 're an Atheist and several openly gay politicians have been elected into high offices ( two equivalent to a governor and our new Foreign Minister/Vice Chancellor , for example .
) When you read that the president ca n't veto a law , keep in mind that he 's merely the Head of State .
The US President is also the Head of Government , and elected directly ( in practice .
) Sufficient to say that last time those positions were held by the same person , it did n't work out that well for us .
The parliament elects the chancellor , and the parliament can also elect a new one at any time .
The ability to get rid of a Head of Government , without an " impeachable offense " , can be useful at times .
The parliament has proportional representation ( with the limitation that only parties that get &gt; 5 \ % of the votes are taken into account ) , so it almost never happens that a single party can form the government on its own , and those coalitions can break apart to form a new government with other parties .
Finally , the courts usually do a very good job , some attempts to introduce particularly stupid laws you may have heard about backfire [ bundesverf...gericht.de ] and we get a new Fundamental Right out of it .
One more thing that may be important : Election campaigns , particularly financing , work differently .
Parties and their candidates get most of their financing out of tax money , depending on how many votes they had in the last elections , and membership fees .
There 's a limited number of campaign spot slots available that get assigned the same way , you ca n't just buy more .
Also , no PACs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short answer: You've just witnessed how your country went from a democracy to fascism in just a few years, murdered millions of its own citizens and killed many more millions across the continent.
Now you've been given the task of writing a new constitution.
What do you do?Given the then very recent atrocities, the first thing you write down is that Human dignity shall be inviolable.
To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
With that out of the way, you analyze what went wrong with the old constitution, and decide the new constitution must be resistant against attempts to abolish it or alter its basic principles.
Part of that is that some articles can't have their essential meaning changed, others can't be changed at all.
But it goes further -- organizations that have the goal to abolish the constitution can be banned (along with symbols that represent them), and if the Federal Constitutional Court agrees, even parties (so far a successor party of the NSDAP and a communist party in the 50s.
) Also, no speech that is capable of inciting violence against minorities.Those are the limits.
I realize some of the consequences sound ridiculous to Americans, but you have to see it in the historical context.
Also, some impressions Americans often have about those limitations are simply not true.
For example, showing swastikas.
I've seen plenty of swastikas in history class or in movies.
That's perfectly legal (education/art).
A T-shirt with the NSDAP flag, on the other hand, can indeed get you a fine of several hundred euros.In practice, Freedom of Expression is alive and well in Germany (unless you're a Nazi.
) There are no beeps during TV shows and wardrobe malfunctions are something to laugh about.
You're much less likely to get sued, and civil and criminal sentences are much lower (incarceration rate is a bit over a tenth of the US'.
) Nobody raises an eyebrow when you proclaim that you're an Atheist and several openly gay politicians have been elected into high offices (two equivalent to a governor and our new Foreign Minister/Vice Chancellor, for example.
)When you read that the president can't veto a law, keep in mind that he's merely the Head of State.
The US President is also the Head of Government, and elected directly (in practice.
) Sufficient to say that last time those positions were held by the same person, it didn't work out that well for us.
The parliament elects the chancellor, and the parliament can also elect a new one at any time.
The ability to get rid of a Head of Government, without an "impeachable offense", can be useful at times.
The parliament has proportional representation (with the limitation that only parties that get &gt;5\% of the votes are taken into account), so it almost never happens that a single party can form the government on its own, and those coalitions can break apart to form a new government with other parties.
Finally, the courts usually do a very good job, some attempts to introduce particularly stupid laws you may have heard about backfire [bundesverf...gericht.de] and we get a new Fundamental Right out of it.
One more thing that may be important: Election campaigns, particularly financing, work differently.
Parties and their candidates get most of their financing out of tax money, depending on how many votes they had in the last elections, and membership fees.
There's a limited number of campaign spot slots available that get assigned the same way, you can't just buy more.
Also, no PACs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263618</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>hasdikarlsam</author>
	<datestamp>1259487660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*whoosh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* whoosh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*whoosh*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265258</id>
	<title>Re:Adolf Hitler agrees!</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1259503860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not an accurate quote. The second part is actually by a rabbi, and presumably isn't an endorsement of such a tactic.</p><p>"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." --Adolf Hitler</p><p>"As long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty." --Rabbi Daniel Lapin</p><p>Source: <a href="http://www.restoreliberty.com/ch5children.htm" title="restoreliberty.com">http://www.restoreliberty.com/ch5children.htm</a> [restoreliberty.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not an accurate quote .
The second part is actually by a rabbi , and presumably is n't an endorsement of such a tactic .
" The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people .
" --Adolf Hitler " As long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children , the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty .
" --Rabbi Daniel LapinSource : http : //www.restoreliberty.com/ch5children.htm [ restoreliberty.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not an accurate quote.
The second part is actually by a rabbi, and presumably isn't an endorsement of such a tactic.
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people.
" --Adolf Hitler"As long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty.
" --Rabbi Daniel LapinSource: http://www.restoreliberty.com/ch5children.htm [restoreliberty.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271192</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259603700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Especially given the example of the USA. We know that freedom of speech is valued highest there. But we can't see that it works out good for you. You have freedom of speech in theory but in practice everyone with a different opinion is labeled unpatriotic and unamaerican(sic). You can say what you want but your voice is easily marginalized without a second thought.</p></div><p>Everyone in the USA is labeled unpatriotic and unamerican.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially given the example of the USA .
We know that freedom of speech is valued highest there .
But we ca n't see that it works out good for you .
You have freedom of speech in theory but in practice everyone with a different opinion is labeled unpatriotic and unamaerican ( sic ) .
You can say what you want but your voice is easily marginalized without a second thought.Everyone in the USA is labeled unpatriotic and unamerican .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially given the example of the USA.
We know that freedom of speech is valued highest there.
But we can't see that it works out good for you.
You have freedom of speech in theory but in practice everyone with a different opinion is labeled unpatriotic and unamaerican(sic).
You can say what you want but your voice is easily marginalized without a second thought.Everyone in the USA is labeled unpatriotic and unamerican.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271682</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1259606220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The number of pedophiles has not increased, at least it's unlikely it has. The number of reported crimes has, actually, for two reasons: First, due to hysteria it's getting increasingly easy to be accused and tried (and remember, being tried as a pedo already makes you one, at least in the eyes of the public. After all, if there had been no reason...). If I find a crying kid out in the street, I will DECIDEDLY NOT go out and try to help unless I can be certain that the child is somehow injured AND others have seen that I had NOTHING to do with it. It's sad, I know, but the very last thing I need is that I go out, try to help this child and be sacked by a hysteric parent thinking I tried to molest their little darling when I was only checking out why a kid was standing alone in the street crying.</p></div><p>I'm glad I have a kid of my own now. It makes me feel a little safer talking to children without people thinking the wrong thing, or at least in a situation like you describe being able to say "Look, I have a kid of my own. I wouldn't want anything to happen to him any more than you would to yours, and I was just making sure yours was safe and unhurt"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The number of pedophiles has not increased , at least it 's unlikely it has .
The number of reported crimes has , actually , for two reasons : First , due to hysteria it 's getting increasingly easy to be accused and tried ( and remember , being tried as a pedo already makes you one , at least in the eyes of the public .
After all , if there had been no reason... ) .
If I find a crying kid out in the street , I will DECIDEDLY NOT go out and try to help unless I can be certain that the child is somehow injured AND others have seen that I had NOTHING to do with it .
It 's sad , I know , but the very last thing I need is that I go out , try to help this child and be sacked by a hysteric parent thinking I tried to molest their little darling when I was only checking out why a kid was standing alone in the street crying.I 'm glad I have a kid of my own now .
It makes me feel a little safer talking to children without people thinking the wrong thing , or at least in a situation like you describe being able to say " Look , I have a kid of my own .
I would n't want anything to happen to him any more than you would to yours , and I was just making sure yours was safe and unhurt "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number of pedophiles has not increased, at least it's unlikely it has.
The number of reported crimes has, actually, for two reasons: First, due to hysteria it's getting increasingly easy to be accused and tried (and remember, being tried as a pedo already makes you one, at least in the eyes of the public.
After all, if there had been no reason...).
If I find a crying kid out in the street, I will DECIDEDLY NOT go out and try to help unless I can be certain that the child is somehow injured AND others have seen that I had NOTHING to do with it.
It's sad, I know, but the very last thing I need is that I go out, try to help this child and be sacked by a hysteric parent thinking I tried to molest their little darling when I was only checking out why a kid was standing alone in the street crying.I'm glad I have a kid of my own now.
It makes me feel a little safer talking to children without people thinking the wrong thing, or at least in a situation like you describe being able to say "Look, I have a kid of my own.
I wouldn't want anything to happen to him any more than you would to yours, and I was just making sure yours was safe and unhurt"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264366</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe it's an artefact of powerbrokers and older, less technologically savvy, people, trying to control this "new" chaotic thing - the interwebs - and bring it to heel. Almost every crime that can have an online dimension has its online dimension focused upon, with the intent of controlling the population and increasing centralized powers, by appealing to and then appeasing voters' fears.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe it 's an artefact of powerbrokers and older , less technologically savvy , people , trying to control this " new " chaotic thing - the interwebs - and bring it to heel .
Almost every crime that can have an online dimension has its online dimension focused upon , with the intent of controlling the population and increasing centralized powers , by appealing to and then appeasing voters ' fears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe it's an artefact of powerbrokers and older, less technologically savvy, people, trying to control this "new" chaotic thing - the interwebs - and bring it to heel.
Almost every crime that can have an online dimension has its online dimension focused upon, with the intent of controlling the population and increasing centralized powers, by appealing to and then appeasing voters' fears.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263504</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259486280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not America, neither will domiante our headlines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not America , neither will domiante our headlines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not America, neither will domiante our headlines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</id>
	<title>What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259528280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may come off as a troll, but I'm legitimately curious:</p><p>I'm from the US.  I have an adequate understanding of various forms of government, including parliamentary forms, but Germany's constitution and government really just drive me crazy with lack of understanding.  I think perhaps a big part of that is cultural and being raised in a country with different values.  The idea that the president can't veto a law, and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little.  The German system in general bugs me a little I suppose, because I place such high value in free speech and things Germany apparently values differently.  I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying I don't understand.</p><p>What I'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are, and if anyone knows -WHY- they exist.  Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general (Germany in particular) does not?</p><p>Maybe someone who has lived in the US and Germany and understands both governments could just write up a brief opinion, because I'm trying to understand without being a "US Imperialist" and saying OH WELL THEY'RE JUST WRONG AND NEED LIBERATIN' but I'd like to get an insider's view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may come off as a troll , but I 'm legitimately curious : I 'm from the US .
I have an adequate understanding of various forms of government , including parliamentary forms , but Germany 's constitution and government really just drive me crazy with lack of understanding .
I think perhaps a big part of that is cultural and being raised in a country with different values .
The idea that the president ca n't veto a law , and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little .
The German system in general bugs me a little I suppose , because I place such high value in free speech and things Germany apparently values differently .
I 'm not saying one is better than the other , I 'm just saying I do n't understand.What I 'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are , and if anyone knows -WHY- they exist .
Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general ( Germany in particular ) does not ? Maybe someone who has lived in the US and Germany and understands both governments could just write up a brief opinion , because I 'm trying to understand without being a " US Imperialist " and saying OH WELL THEY 'RE JUST WRONG AND NEED LIBERATIN ' but I 'd like to get an insider 's view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may come off as a troll, but I'm legitimately curious:I'm from the US.
I have an adequate understanding of various forms of government, including parliamentary forms, but Germany's constitution and government really just drive me crazy with lack of understanding.
I think perhaps a big part of that is cultural and being raised in a country with different values.
The idea that the president can't veto a law, and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little.
The German system in general bugs me a little I suppose, because I place such high value in free speech and things Germany apparently values differently.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying I don't understand.What I'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are, and if anyone knows -WHY- they exist.
Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general (Germany in particular) does not?Maybe someone who has lived in the US and Germany and understands both governments could just write up a brief opinion, because I'm trying to understand without being a "US Imperialist" and saying OH WELL THEY'RE JUST WRONG AND NEED LIBERATIN' but I'd like to get an insider's view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264080</id>
	<title>Re:Looks like he is a paedophile criminal now...</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1259492520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeng that this comes from the woman who thought it'd be a good idea to open a press meeting (sorry, can't remember the proper word now in any language) by showing child porn to the reporters. Looks like a pot insisting that everyone else is a kettle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeng that this comes from the woman who thought it 'd be a good idea to open a press meeting ( sorry , ca n't remember the proper word now in any language ) by showing child porn to the reporters .
Looks like a pot insisting that everyone else is a kettle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeng that this comes from the woman who thought it'd be a good idea to open a press meeting (sorry, can't remember the proper word now in any language) by showing child porn to the reporters.
Looks like a pot insisting that everyone else is a kettle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263518</id>
	<title>WTF ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259486400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Archos 'officially' releases the open-source Special Developer Edition firmware... but installing it voids the warranty ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Archos 'officially ' releases the open-source Special Developer Edition firmware... but installing it voids the warranty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Archos 'officially' releases the open-source Special Developer Edition firmware... but installing it voids the warranty ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264842</id>
	<title>Re:Matter of framing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259499300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please don't use tinyurl-like services on Slashdot, many readers would like to know where exactly do the links go. It's even more pointless if the URL isn't pasted as-is in the text, so its length doesn't even matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't use tinyurl-like services on Slashdot , many readers would like to know where exactly do the links go .
It 's even more pointless if the URL is n't pasted as-is in the text , so its length does n't even matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't use tinyurl-like services on Slashdot, many readers would like to know where exactly do the links go.
It's even more pointless if the URL isn't pasted as-is in the text, so its length doesn't even matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264720</id>
	<title>Sexual attraction to children is not uncommon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259498160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with your concerns about children's liberty being restricted in the name of "protecting" them. I also agree with your belief that there are some serious issues which are often ignored by the majority; the hysteria over paedophilia allows significant risks to children to remain undetected or trivialised.</p><p>"<i>the effect of 0.00001\% of the population having a predilection for children is frankly irrelevant compared to dangers such as traffic accidents, non-sexual abuse, violence and murder</i>"</p><p>Actually, the percentage of people who are attracted to children is <i>much</i> higher than that, even if the men who like sexually mature 15 year old girls are not included in the statistics. Despite the widespread occurrence of paedophilia within the general population, most paedophiles refrain from abusing children for several reasons:</p><ul><li> <i>Most</i> paedophiles have a conscience.</li><li> <i>Most</i> paedophiles don't want to be arrested and ostracised by their community (although frankly, many of us feel marginalised even though we haven't offended).</li><li> <i>Most</i> paedophiles have suffered bad childhoods and don't wish to create problems for other children.</li></ul><p>I'm not just making assumptions based on the fact that I live responsibly with a paedophilic orientation. I know many other paedophiles who are also responsible people.</p><p>I have posted this information previously, but it remains relevant:</p><p>From <a href="http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048\_article.html" title="ipce.info">Hall, et al</a> [ipce.info] -</p><blockquote><div><p>"Consistent with previous data (Barbaree &amp; Marshall, 1989; Briere &amp; Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund &amp; Watson, 1991), 20 \% of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 \% exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.</p><p>[..]</p><p>Eighty subjects completed the study. [..] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33\%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.</p><p>[..]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal. In recent studies, 12 to 32\% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &amp;R, 1989, H,G &amp; C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&amp;M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&amp;L, 1989, F &amp; W, 1989). Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten &amp; Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey &amp; Laws, 1990)."</p></div></blockquote><p>From the <a href="http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/481" title="oxfordjournals.org">British Journal of Social Work</a> [oxfordjournals.org] -</p><blockquote><div><p>"A self-administer questionnaire was given to a sample of 92 female and 91 male public sector child care workers. Results showed a significantly higher percentage of males (15 per cent) than females (4 per cent) expressed a sexual interest in children."</p></div></blockquote><p>From <i> <a href="http://kalapa.nfshost.com/files/Is\%20Pedophilia\%20a\%20Mental\%20Disorder.pdf" title="nfshost.com">Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder?</a> [nfshost.com] </i> -</p><blockquote><div><p>"In a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21\% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9\% described sexual fantasies involving children, 5\% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7\% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught (Briere &amp; Runtz, 1989). Briere and Runtz remarked that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher" (p. 71). In another sample with 100 male and 180 female undergraduate students, 22\% of males and 3\% of females reported sexual attraction to a child (Smiljanich &amp; Briere, 1996).</p><p>Laboratory researchers have validated physiologically the self-report studies of nonclinical, nonpedophile identified volunteers. In a sample of 80 "normal" volunteers, over 25\% self-reported some pedophilic interest or in the plethysmographic phase exhibited penile arousal to a child that equaled or exceeded arousal to an adult (Hall, Hirschman, &amp; Oliver, 1995). In another study, "normal" men's erections to pictures of pubescent and younger girls averaged 70 and 50\%, respectively, of their responses to adult females (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergersen, &amp; Holmes, 1975). In a control group of 66 males recruited from hospital staff and the community, 17\% showed a penile response that was pedophilic (Fedora et al., 1992). Freund and Watson (1991), studying community male volunteers in a plethysmography classification study, found that19\%were misclassified as having an erotic preference for minors. Freund and Costell (1970) studied 48 young Czech soldiers who were shown slides of children between 4 and 10, both male and female, as well as adolescents and adults, male and female. Penile responsivity to female children, ages 4-10, was intermediate to adolescent and adult females and males in one scoring system. In the other scoring system, all 48 soldiers showed penile response to adult females, as did 40 of 48 to adolescent females, and notably, 28 of 48 showed penile response to the female children age 4-10."</p></div></blockquote><p>Here is some information collected by a friend (some of which is sourced from studies also quoted above):</p><blockquote><div><p>"Although one-in-seven men expressed a sexual interest in children, it is likely that a significantly smaller number of men actually sexually abuse children. Empirical evidence indicates that inhibitors are effective in preventing a sexual interest in children becoming actual perpetration. [...] Research suggests the presence of socio-cultural inhibitors in the male population. If someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children."</p></div></blockquote><p>~ Mike Freel, in <i> <a href="http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/33/4/481.pdf" title="oxfordjournals.org">Child Sexual Abuse and the Male Monopoly</a> [oxfordjournals.org] </i> (British Journal of Social Work)</p><blockquote><div><p>"The current results suggest that sexual arousal to pedophilic stimuli occurs among a sizable minority of normal men who report no pedophilic behavior and is not necessarily associated with pedophilic behavior."</p></div></blockquote><p>~ Gordon Hall, et al., in <i> <a href="http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048\_article.html" title="ipce.info">Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men</a> [ipce.info] </i> (Behavior Therapy)</p><blockquote><div><p>"Terms such as 'child sexual abuse', 'incest', 'child molestation' and 'pederasty' are not equivalent to pedophilia. Terms that denote sex with minors are criminal actions; pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children. Not all who sexually abuse minors are pedophilic. For example, some who sexually abuse minors may opportunistically select minors simply because they are available. Sex with a minor is not, ipso facto a determination of pedophilia. Also, not all individuals who fulfill the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia actually abuse children."</p></div></blockquote><p>~ Peter Fagan, et al., in <i> <a href="http://kalapa.nfshost.com/files/fagan.pdf" title="nfshost.com">Pedophilia</a> [nfshost.com] </i> (Journal of the American Medical Association)</p><blockquote><div><p>"Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between "sex offender against a minor" and "pedophile." The former refers to a criminal sexual behavior and the latter to an anomalous sexual preference. Many pedophiles never act on their impulses. The DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) defines pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children, and requires that the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. It is therefore possible for an individual who meets these criteria to have never engaged in illegal sexual behaviors. At the same time, not all sex offenders against a minor are pedophiles. All mental health professionals acting in an expert witness capacity should know this distinction."</p></div></blockquote><p>~ Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield, in <i> <a href="http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/special\_problems12.htm" title="ipt-forensics.com">Coping With Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony</a> [ipt-forensics.com] </i> (Institute for Psychological Therapies)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your concerns about children 's liberty being restricted in the name of " protecting " them .
I also agree with your belief that there are some serious issues which are often ignored by the majority ; the hysteria over paedophilia allows significant risks to children to remain undetected or trivialised .
" the effect of 0.00001 \ % of the population having a predilection for children is frankly irrelevant compared to dangers such as traffic accidents , non-sexual abuse , violence and murder " Actually , the percentage of people who are attracted to children is much higher than that , even if the men who like sexually mature 15 year old girls are not included in the statistics .
Despite the widespread occurrence of paedophilia within the general population , most paedophiles refrain from abusing children for several reasons : Most paedophiles have a conscience .
Most paedophiles do n't want to be arrested and ostracised by their community ( although frankly , many of us feel marginalised even though we have n't offended ) .
Most paedophiles have suffered bad childhoods and do n't wish to create problems for other children.I 'm not just making assumptions based on the fact that I live responsibly with a paedophilic orientation .
I know many other paedophiles who are also responsible people.I have posted this information previously , but it remains relevant : From Hall , et al [ ipce.info ] - " Consistent with previous data ( Barbaree &amp; Marshall , 1989 ; Briere &amp; Runtz , 1989 ; Fedora et al. , 1992 ; Freund &amp; Watson , 1991 ) , 20 \ % of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 \ % exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli. [ . .
] Eighty subjects completed the study .
[ .. ] Twenty-six subjects [ approximately 33 \ % ] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides. [ . .
] ....a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal .
In recent studies , 12 to 32 \ % of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children ( B &amp;R , 1989 , H,G &amp; C. 1990 ) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli ( B&amp;M , 1989 , F et al , 1992 , F&amp;L , 1989 , F &amp; W , 1989 ) .
Thus , arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior ( Hall , 1990 ; Schouten &amp; Simon , 1992 ) , although there are arguments to the contrary ( Quinsey &amp; Laws , 1990 ) .
" From the British Journal of Social Work [ oxfordjournals.org ] - " A self-administer questionnaire was given to a sample of 92 female and 91 male public sector child care workers .
Results showed a significantly higher percentage of males ( 15 per cent ) than females ( 4 per cent ) expressed a sexual interest in children .
" From Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder ?
[ nfshost.com ] - " In a sample of nearly 200 university males , 21 \ % reported some sexual attraction to small children , 9 \ % described sexual fantasies involving children , 5 \ % admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children , and 7 \ % indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught ( Briere &amp; Runtz , 1989 ) .
Briere and Runtz remarked that " given the probable social undesirability of such admissions , we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher " ( p. 71 ) . In another sample with 100 male and 180 female undergraduate students , 22 \ % of males and 3 \ % of females reported sexual attraction to a child ( Smiljanich &amp; Briere , 1996 ) .Laboratory researchers have validated physiologically the self-report studies of nonclinical , nonpedophile identified volunteers .
In a sample of 80 " normal " volunteers , over 25 \ % self-reported some pedophilic interest or in the plethysmographic phase exhibited penile arousal to a child that equaled or exceeded arousal to an adult ( Hall , Hirschman , &amp; Oliver , 1995 ) .
In another study , " normal " men 's erections to pictures of pubescent and younger girls averaged 70 and 50 \ % , respectively , of their responses to adult females ( Quinsey , Steinman , Bergersen , &amp; Holmes , 1975 ) .
In a control group of 66 males recruited from hospital staff and the community , 17 \ % showed a penile response that was pedophilic ( Fedora et al. , 1992 ) .
Freund and Watson ( 1991 ) , studying community male volunteers in a plethysmography classification study , found that19 \ % were misclassified as having an erotic preference for minors .
Freund and Costell ( 1970 ) studied 48 young Czech soldiers who were shown slides of children between 4 and 10 , both male and female , as well as adolescents and adults , male and female .
Penile responsivity to female children , ages 4-10 , was intermediate to adolescent and adult females and males in one scoring system .
In the other scoring system , all 48 soldiers showed penile response to adult females , as did 40 of 48 to adolescent females , and notably , 28 of 48 showed penile response to the female children age 4-10 .
" Here is some information collected by a friend ( some of which is sourced from studies also quoted above ) : " Although one-in-seven men expressed a sexual interest in children , it is likely that a significantly smaller number of men actually sexually abuse children .
Empirical evidence indicates that inhibitors are effective in preventing a sexual interest in children becoming actual perpetration .
[ ... ] Research suggests the presence of socio-cultural inhibitors in the male population .
If someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children , no amount of emotional congruence , sexual arousal , or blockage will lead them to abuse children .
" ~ Mike Freel , in Child Sexual Abuse and the Male Monopoly [ oxfordjournals.org ] ( British Journal of Social Work ) " The current results suggest that sexual arousal to pedophilic stimuli occurs among a sizable minority of normal men who report no pedophilic behavior and is not necessarily associated with pedophilic behavior .
" ~ Gordon Hall , et al. , in Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men [ ipce.info ] ( Behavior Therapy ) " Terms such as 'child sexual abuse ' , 'incest ' , 'child molestation ' and 'pederasty ' are not equivalent to pedophilia .
Terms that denote sex with minors are criminal actions ; pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children .
Not all who sexually abuse minors are pedophilic .
For example , some who sexually abuse minors may opportunistically select minors simply because they are available .
Sex with a minor is not , ipso facto a determination of pedophilia .
Also , not all individuals who fulfill the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia actually abuse children .
" ~ Peter Fagan , et al. , in Pedophilia [ nfshost.com ] ( Journal of the American Medical Association ) " Although the terms are often used interchangeably , a distinction must be made between " sex offender against a minor " and " pedophile .
" The former refers to a criminal sexual behavior and the latter to an anomalous sexual preference .
Many pedophiles never act on their impulses .
The DSM-IV ( American Psychiatric Association , 1994 ) defines pedophilia in terms of recurrent , intense sexually arousing fantasies , sexual urges , or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children , and requires that the fantasies , urges , or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social , occupational , or other important areas of functioning .
It is therefore possible for an individual who meets these criteria to have never engaged in illegal sexual behaviors .
At the same time , not all sex offenders against a minor are pedophiles .
All mental health professionals acting in an expert witness capacity should know this distinction .
" ~ Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield , in Coping With Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony [ ipt-forensics.com ] ( Institute for Psychological Therapies )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your concerns about children's liberty being restricted in the name of "protecting" them.
I also agree with your belief that there are some serious issues which are often ignored by the majority; the hysteria over paedophilia allows significant risks to children to remain undetected or trivialised.
"the effect of 0.00001\% of the population having a predilection for children is frankly irrelevant compared to dangers such as traffic accidents, non-sexual abuse, violence and murder"Actually, the percentage of people who are attracted to children is much higher than that, even if the men who like sexually mature 15 year old girls are not included in the statistics.
Despite the widespread occurrence of paedophilia within the general population, most paedophiles refrain from abusing children for several reasons: Most paedophiles have a conscience.
Most paedophiles don't want to be arrested and ostracised by their community (although frankly, many of us feel marginalised even though we haven't offended).
Most paedophiles have suffered bad childhoods and don't wish to create problems for other children.I'm not just making assumptions based on the fact that I live responsibly with a paedophilic orientation.
I know many other paedophiles who are also responsible people.I have posted this information previously, but it remains relevant:From Hall, et al [ipce.info] -"Consistent with previous data (Barbaree &amp; Marshall, 1989; Briere &amp; Runtz, 1989; Fedora et al., 1992; Freund &amp; Watson, 1991), 20 \% of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest and 26.25 \% exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli.[..
]Eighty subjects completed the study.
[..] Twenty-six subjects [approximately 33\%] exhibited sexual arousal to the child slides that equaled or exceeded their arousal to the adult slides.[..
] ....a sizable minority of men in normal populations who have not molested children may exhibit pedophilic fantasies and arousal.
In recent studies, 12 to 32\% of community college samples of men reported sexual attraction to children (B &amp;R, 1989, H,G &amp; C. 1990) or exhibited penile response to pedophilic stimuli (B&amp;M, 1989, F et al, 1992, F&amp;L, 1989, F &amp; W, 1989).
Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior (Hall, 1990; Schouten &amp; Simon, 1992), although there are arguments to the contrary (Quinsey &amp; Laws, 1990).
"From the British Journal of Social Work [oxfordjournals.org] -"A self-administer questionnaire was given to a sample of 92 female and 91 male public sector child care workers.
Results showed a significantly higher percentage of males (15 per cent) than females (4 per cent) expressed a sexual interest in children.
"From  Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder?
[nfshost.com]  -"In a sample of nearly 200 university males, 21\% reported some sexual attraction to small children, 9\% described sexual fantasies involving children, 5\% admitted to having masturbated to sexual fantasies of children, and 7\% indicated they might have sex with a child if not caught (Briere &amp; Runtz, 1989).
Briere and Runtz remarked that "given the probable social undesirability of such admissions, we may hypothesize that the actual rates were even higher" (p. 71). In another sample with 100 male and 180 female undergraduate students, 22\% of males and 3\% of females reported sexual attraction to a child (Smiljanich &amp; Briere, 1996).Laboratory researchers have validated physiologically the self-report studies of nonclinical, nonpedophile identified volunteers.
In a sample of 80 "normal" volunteers, over 25\% self-reported some pedophilic interest or in the plethysmographic phase exhibited penile arousal to a child that equaled or exceeded arousal to an adult (Hall, Hirschman, &amp; Oliver, 1995).
In another study, "normal" men's erections to pictures of pubescent and younger girls averaged 70 and 50\%, respectively, of their responses to adult females (Quinsey, Steinman, Bergersen, &amp; Holmes, 1975).
In a control group of 66 males recruited from hospital staff and the community, 17\% showed a penile response that was pedophilic (Fedora et al., 1992).
Freund and Watson (1991), studying community male volunteers in a plethysmography classification study, found that19\%were misclassified as having an erotic preference for minors.
Freund and Costell (1970) studied 48 young Czech soldiers who were shown slides of children between 4 and 10, both male and female, as well as adolescents and adults, male and female.
Penile responsivity to female children, ages 4-10, was intermediate to adolescent and adult females and males in one scoring system.
In the other scoring system, all 48 soldiers showed penile response to adult females, as did 40 of 48 to adolescent females, and notably, 28 of 48 showed penile response to the female children age 4-10.
"Here is some information collected by a friend (some of which is sourced from studies also quoted above):"Although one-in-seven men expressed a sexual interest in children, it is likely that a significantly smaller number of men actually sexually abuse children.
Empirical evidence indicates that inhibitors are effective in preventing a sexual interest in children becoming actual perpetration.
[...] Research suggests the presence of socio-cultural inhibitors in the male population.
If someone is fully inhibited from sexually abusing children, no amount of emotional congruence, sexual arousal, or blockage will lead them to abuse children.
"~ Mike Freel, in  Child Sexual Abuse and the Male Monopoly [oxfordjournals.org]  (British Journal of Social Work)"The current results suggest that sexual arousal to pedophilic stimuli occurs among a sizable minority of normal men who report no pedophilic behavior and is not necessarily associated with pedophilic behavior.
"~ Gordon Hall, et al., in  Sexual Arousal and Arousability to Pedophilic Stimuli in a Community Sample of Normal Men [ipce.info]  (Behavior Therapy)"Terms such as 'child sexual abuse', 'incest', 'child molestation' and 'pederasty' are not equivalent to pedophilia.
Terms that denote sex with minors are criminal actions; pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children.
Not all who sexually abuse minors are pedophilic.
For example, some who sexually abuse minors may opportunistically select minors simply because they are available.
Sex with a minor is not, ipso facto a determination of pedophilia.
Also, not all individuals who fulfill the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia actually abuse children.
"~ Peter Fagan, et al., in  Pedophilia [nfshost.com]  (Journal of the American Medical Association)"Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between "sex offender against a minor" and "pedophile.
" The former refers to a criminal sexual behavior and the latter to an anomalous sexual preference.
Many pedophiles never act on their impulses.
The DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) defines pedophilia in terms of recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children, and requires that the fantasies, urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
It is therefore possible for an individual who meets these criteria to have never engaged in illegal sexual behaviors.
At the same time, not all sex offenders against a minor are pedophiles.
All mental health professionals acting in an expert witness capacity should know this distinction.
"~ Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield, in  Coping With Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony [ipt-forensics.com]  (Institute for Psychological Therapies)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264422</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>SimonInOz</author>
	<datestamp>1259495340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What has changed?</p><p>We are richer. We die less. We have less children. We value our children much more highly.<br>There are (vastly) more cars on the streets. We fear our children will be hurt if they play there.<br>We keep our children indoors.</p><p>So they play with indoor toys. They get more shortsighted. They become inward looking and less social. So do we - the parents.</p><p>We see our neighbours less. We know less of them. Perhaps we don't even notice if one of them has been enslaving children (yes, I am thinking of a recent case in the US).</p><p>So the solution is obvious - ban cars in residential areas.</p><p>Our children will once again be free to run the streets - even ride their bikes there. We will get to know our neightbours better. The children will look after each other. It'll be fine. (It was before - why not now?)<br>Oh, and we will have to walk from our homes to the car park (or train station). We will be fitter. And thinner.</p><p>It'll be a better place.</p><p>What has this to do with paedophilia? Not much. But it has a lot to do with children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What has changed ? We are richer .
We die less .
We have less children .
We value our children much more highly.There are ( vastly ) more cars on the streets .
We fear our children will be hurt if they play there.We keep our children indoors.So they play with indoor toys .
They get more shortsighted .
They become inward looking and less social .
So do we - the parents.We see our neighbours less .
We know less of them .
Perhaps we do n't even notice if one of them has been enslaving children ( yes , I am thinking of a recent case in the US ) .So the solution is obvious - ban cars in residential areas.Our children will once again be free to run the streets - even ride their bikes there .
We will get to know our neightbours better .
The children will look after each other .
It 'll be fine .
( It was before - why not now ?
) Oh , and we will have to walk from our homes to the car park ( or train station ) .
We will be fitter .
And thinner.It 'll be a better place.What has this to do with paedophilia ?
Not much .
But it has a lot to do with children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has changed?We are richer.
We die less.
We have less children.
We value our children much more highly.There are (vastly) more cars on the streets.
We fear our children will be hurt if they play there.We keep our children indoors.So they play with indoor toys.
They get more shortsighted.
They become inward looking and less social.
So do we - the parents.We see our neighbours less.
We know less of them.
Perhaps we don't even notice if one of them has been enslaving children (yes, I am thinking of a recent case in the US).So the solution is obvious - ban cars in residential areas.Our children will once again be free to run the streets - even ride their bikes there.
We will get to know our neightbours better.
The children will look after each other.
It'll be fine.
(It was before - why not now?
)Oh, and we will have to walk from our homes to the car park (or train station).
We will be fitter.
And thinner.It'll be a better place.What has this to do with paedophilia?
Not much.
But it has a lot to do with children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264070</id>
	<title>Re:Additional Information</title>
	<author>aaaaaaargh!</author>
	<datestamp>1259492460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Federal President is also ideologically associated to the CDU (although he is not allowed to be part any party), and he would be part of it, if he hadn't been elected as President.</p></div><p>Uhm, last time I checked President K&#246;hler was a member of CDU and there is no law or rule that prohibits this. Actually, all German Federal Presidents so far have been members of political parties (CDU, FDP, and SPD so far). What you probably meant to say is that traditionally the Federal President acts as if he was relatively neutral, because his primary role is not political but to represent Germany as a head of state with (almost) no power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Federal President is also ideologically associated to the CDU ( although he is not allowed to be part any party ) , and he would be part of it , if he had n't been elected as President.Uhm , last time I checked President K   hler was a member of CDU and there is no law or rule that prohibits this .
Actually , all German Federal Presidents so far have been members of political parties ( CDU , FDP , and SPD so far ) .
What you probably meant to say is that traditionally the Federal President acts as if he was relatively neutral , because his primary role is not political but to represent Germany as a head of state with ( almost ) no power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Federal President is also ideologically associated to the CDU (although he is not allowed to be part any party), and he would be part of it, if he hadn't been elected as President.Uhm, last time I checked President Köhler was a member of CDU and there is no law or rule that prohibits this.
Actually, all German Federal Presidents so far have been members of political parties (CDU, FDP, and SPD so far).
What you probably meant to say is that traditionally the Federal President acts as if he was relatively neutral, because his primary role is not political but to represent Germany as a head of state with (almost) no power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264490</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1259496060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the Communists aren't around to scare people and unfortunately both the politicians and the tabloid editors are really interested in scared people. Scared people buy every tabloid writing bold headlines like "<b>THIS IS THE</b> (suspected) <b>SICK BASTARD WHO RAPED LITTLE SUSAN (9)</b>" and after enough "news stories" asking questions like "<b>WHY CAN'T ANYONE MAKE THIS ONSLAUGHT OF BESTIAL PEDO-RAPISTS STOP?</b>" and featuring "world reknowned paedophilia experts" being one step short of reciting the eponymous song from the musical <i>Reefer Madness</i> with "child porn" substituted for "reefer", most people who rely on tabloids for their opinions agree that one, two liberties are not a bad thing to lose if it puts a stop to those pedo devils trying to rape all children on the planet.<br>
<br>
Of course it won't change a thing. And the anti-paedophilia censorship they were sold on turns out to be anti-everything. But that won't matter as the BILD, the Sun or whatever's the name of their little opinion delivery rag will proudly proclaim the war on paedophilia over. Until the next high-profile paedophilia case when they get to spread the fear again.<br>
<br>
<br>
I feel compelled to close my post with a few lines from the song "Lasse red'n" form German punk band "Die &#196;rzte":<br>
<i>Die meisten Leute haben ihre Bildung aus der BILD.<br>
Und die besteht nun mal, wer w&#252;&#223;te das nicht,<br>
Aus Angst, Hass, Titten und dem Wetterbericht.</i> <br>
<br>
<i>Most people have their education from the BILD.<br>
And that consists, who wouldn't know that,<br>
Of fear, hate, tits and the weather report.</i> <br>
<br>
Truer words have never been spoken about a tabloid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the Communists are n't around to scare people and unfortunately both the politicians and the tabloid editors are really interested in scared people .
Scared people buy every tabloid writing bold headlines like " THIS IS THE ( suspected ) SICK BASTARD WHO RAPED LITTLE SUSAN ( 9 ) " and after enough " news stories " asking questions like " WHY CA N'T ANYONE MAKE THIS ONSLAUGHT OF BESTIAL PEDO-RAPISTS STOP ?
" and featuring " world reknowned paedophilia experts " being one step short of reciting the eponymous song from the musical Reefer Madness with " child porn " substituted for " reefer " , most people who rely on tabloids for their opinions agree that one , two liberties are not a bad thing to lose if it puts a stop to those pedo devils trying to rape all children on the planet .
Of course it wo n't change a thing .
And the anti-paedophilia censorship they were sold on turns out to be anti-everything .
But that wo n't matter as the BILD , the Sun or whatever 's the name of their little opinion delivery rag will proudly proclaim the war on paedophilia over .
Until the next high-profile paedophilia case when they get to spread the fear again .
I feel compelled to close my post with a few lines from the song " Lasse red'n " form German punk band " Die   rzte " : Die meisten Leute haben ihre Bildung aus der BILD .
Und die besteht nun mal , wer w     te das nicht , Aus Angst , Hass , Titten und dem Wetterbericht .
Most people have their education from the BILD .
And that consists , who would n't know that , Of fear , hate , tits and the weather report .
Truer words have never been spoken about a tabloid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the Communists aren't around to scare people and unfortunately both the politicians and the tabloid editors are really interested in scared people.
Scared people buy every tabloid writing bold headlines like "THIS IS THE (suspected) SICK BASTARD WHO RAPED LITTLE SUSAN (9)" and after enough "news stories" asking questions like "WHY CAN'T ANYONE MAKE THIS ONSLAUGHT OF BESTIAL PEDO-RAPISTS STOP?
" and featuring "world reknowned paedophilia experts" being one step short of reciting the eponymous song from the musical Reefer Madness with "child porn" substituted for "reefer", most people who rely on tabloids for their opinions agree that one, two liberties are not a bad thing to lose if it puts a stop to those pedo devils trying to rape all children on the planet.
Of course it won't change a thing.
And the anti-paedophilia censorship they were sold on turns out to be anti-everything.
But that won't matter as the BILD, the Sun or whatever's the name of their little opinion delivery rag will proudly proclaim the war on paedophilia over.
Until the next high-profile paedophilia case when they get to spread the fear again.
I feel compelled to close my post with a few lines from the song "Lasse red'n" form German punk band "Die Ärzte":
Die meisten Leute haben ihre Bildung aus der BILD.
Und die besteht nun mal, wer wüßte das nicht,
Aus Angst, Hass, Titten und dem Wetterbericht.
Most people have their education from the BILD.
And that consists, who wouldn't know that,
Of fear, hate, tits and the weather report.
Truer words have never been spoken about a tabloid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263700</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>fightinfilipino</author>
	<datestamp>1259488860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's pretty obvious: the German Constitution upholds child pornography as an inalienable, constitutional right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's pretty obvious : the German Constitution upholds child pornography as an inalienable , constitutional right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's pretty obvious: the German Constitution upholds child pornography as an inalienable, constitutional right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269496</id>
	<title>Re:Sexual attraction to children is not uncommon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between "sex offender against a minor" and "pedophile."<br>Of course there's a distinction, not only for the reason mentioned but also because not all minors are children. Using those terms interchangably is as stupid as it gets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Although the terms are often used interchangeably , a distinction must be made between " sex offender against a minor " and " pedophile .
" Of course there 's a distinction , not only for the reason mentioned but also because not all minors are children .
Using those terms interchangably is as stupid as it gets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between "sex offender against a minor" and "pedophile.
"Of course there's a distinction, not only for the reason mentioned but also because not all minors are children.
Using those terms interchangably is as stupid as it gets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269288</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259591940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet removes the two greatest aids of detecting sarcasm:</p><p>1. The tone of voice.<br>2. The assumption that the speaker is sane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet removes the two greatest aids of detecting sarcasm : 1 .
The tone of voice.2 .
The assumption that the speaker is sane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet removes the two greatest aids of detecting sarcasm:1.
The tone of voice.2.
The assumption that the speaker is sane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264294</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259494380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worth pointing out that the basic laws governing both Germany and Japan were created during the period when both of these countries were under US occupation after the second World War.</p><p>Some of the laws they have come directly from a Allied desire to limit their ability to return to the sort of military power and political setup they had during WWII.</p><p>The most obvious example is in the heavy limitations on the Japanese military, and the fact that Japan cannot declare war except in self-defense.  I feel the rules against Nazi symbols in Germany were also heavily influenced by the occupation forces' desires.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth pointing out that the basic laws governing both Germany and Japan were created during the period when both of these countries were under US occupation after the second World War.Some of the laws they have come directly from a Allied desire to limit their ability to return to the sort of military power and political setup they had during WWII.The most obvious example is in the heavy limitations on the Japanese military , and the fact that Japan can not declare war except in self-defense .
I feel the rules against Nazi symbols in Germany were also heavily influenced by the occupation forces ' desires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth pointing out that the basic laws governing both Germany and Japan were created during the period when both of these countries were under US occupation after the second World War.Some of the laws they have come directly from a Allied desire to limit their ability to return to the sort of military power and political setup they had during WWII.The most obvious example is in the heavy limitations on the Japanese military, and the fact that Japan cannot declare war except in self-defense.
I feel the rules against Nazi symbols in Germany were also heavily influenced by the occupation forces' desires.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263596</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259487420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello,</p><p>Allow me to introduce you to the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm" title="wikipedia.org">sarcasm.</a> [wikipedia.org]   It will probably surprise you to learn that people sometimes say things that are obviously false in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the statement.  Sarcasm is fairly common on the internet, and if you have been online for more than a few days, you likely have encountered it already in other forums.</p><p>I also suggest you do some reading on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony" title="wikipedia.org">verbal irony</a> [wikipedia.org] so that you may partake in discussions such as this one without embarrassing yourself further.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello,Allow me to introduce you to the concept of sarcasm .
[ wikipedia.org ] It will probably surprise you to learn that people sometimes say things that are obviously false in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the statement .
Sarcasm is fairly common on the internet , and if you have been online for more than a few days , you likely have encountered it already in other forums.I also suggest you do some reading on verbal irony [ wikipedia.org ] so that you may partake in discussions such as this one without embarrassing yourself further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello,Allow me to introduce you to the concept of sarcasm.
[wikipedia.org]   It will probably surprise you to learn that people sometimes say things that are obviously false in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the statement.
Sarcasm is fairly common on the internet, and if you have been online for more than a few days, you likely have encountered it already in other forums.I also suggest you do some reading on verbal irony [wikipedia.org] so that you may partake in discussions such as this one without embarrassing yourself further.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264904</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259499840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't get is that when I was last in Germany (1998), I saw pictures of naked children all over the damned place.  I recall a billboard on a very public street advertising god knows what (a bank?  I really can't remember) with a row of maybe 15 boys standing in a row, wearing nothing but tricorner hats, facing the camera full-on.  And not a one had "grass on the field", as it were.  Is that acceptable advertising still, or is it suddenly child porn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is that when I was last in Germany ( 1998 ) , I saw pictures of naked children all over the damned place .
I recall a billboard on a very public street advertising god knows what ( a bank ?
I really ca n't remember ) with a row of maybe 15 boys standing in a row , wearing nothing but tricorner hats , facing the camera full-on .
And not a one had " grass on the field " , as it were .
Is that acceptable advertising still , or is it suddenly child porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is that when I was last in Germany (1998), I saw pictures of naked children all over the damned place.
I recall a billboard on a very public street advertising god knows what (a bank?
I really can't remember) with a row of maybe 15 boys standing in a row, wearing nothing but tricorner hats, facing the camera full-on.
And not a one had "grass on the field", as it were.
Is that acceptable advertising still, or is it suddenly child porn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264248</id>
	<title>Re:Matter of framing</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1259494020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As for excessive violence: It's not like the States (often held as the canonical counterexample here) are without their own censorship. Anything involving sex or the primary or secondary sex characteristics is guaranteed to at least bump up your rating (even if you didn't even include it in the game, see Oblivion); then there's that one game (can't remember the name, even though I think it's The Nations) where in the German version one faction produces booze and cigarettes while in the American one they produce lollypops and candy.<br>
<br>
Quite seriously, I'd rather have a game wave tits in my child's face than casually depict violence. Sex is natural, fun (if consensual) and a good workout. Violence is a good workout and certainly in our nature but something we should avoid rather than cherish.<br>
<br>
I'm not saying here that censorhip of either is necessary, just that I think it's easier to justify violence censorship than sex censorship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for excessive violence : It 's not like the States ( often held as the canonical counterexample here ) are without their own censorship .
Anything involving sex or the primary or secondary sex characteristics is guaranteed to at least bump up your rating ( even if you did n't even include it in the game , see Oblivion ) ; then there 's that one game ( ca n't remember the name , even though I think it 's The Nations ) where in the German version one faction produces booze and cigarettes while in the American one they produce lollypops and candy .
Quite seriously , I 'd rather have a game wave tits in my child 's face than casually depict violence .
Sex is natural , fun ( if consensual ) and a good workout .
Violence is a good workout and certainly in our nature but something we should avoid rather than cherish .
I 'm not saying here that censorhip of either is necessary , just that I think it 's easier to justify violence censorship than sex censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for excessive violence: It's not like the States (often held as the canonical counterexample here) are without their own censorship.
Anything involving sex or the primary or secondary sex characteristics is guaranteed to at least bump up your rating (even if you didn't even include it in the game, see Oblivion); then there's that one game (can't remember the name, even though I think it's The Nations) where in the German version one faction produces booze and cigarettes while in the American one they produce lollypops and candy.
Quite seriously, I'd rather have a game wave tits in my child's face than casually depict violence.
Sex is natural, fun (if consensual) and a good workout.
Violence is a good workout and certainly in our nature but something we should avoid rather than cherish.
I'm not saying here that censorhip of either is necessary, just that I think it's easier to justify violence censorship than sex censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264786</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259498820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The person with de facto executive power is the Chancellor (think of him as the Prime Minister).</p></div><p>Actually, right now the Chancellor of Germany (Mrs Angela Merkel) is a "she"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The person with de facto executive power is the Chancellor ( think of him as the Prime Minister ) .Actually , right now the Chancellor of Germany ( Mrs Angela Merkel ) is a " she " : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person with de facto executive power is the Chancellor (think of him as the Prime Minister).Actually, right now the Chancellor of Germany (Mrs Angela Merkel) is a "she" :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267088</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1259520360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...What has this to do with paedophilia? Not much. But it has a lot to do with children."</p><p>You just stated a just as good and more practical monologue than George Carlin(RIP) about children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...What has this to do with paedophilia ?
Not much .
But it has a lot to do with children .
" You just stated a just as good and more practical monologue than George Carlin ( RIP ) about children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...What has this to do with paedophilia?
Not much.
But it has a lot to do with children.
"You just stated a just as good and more practical monologue than George Carlin(RIP) about children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264766</id>
	<title>To explain what's going on</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259498640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law states that the government manages a secret list which ISPs have to implement (without looking at it... don't ask me how this is supposed to work but hey, it's a law concerning the internet, thus not necessarily feasible) which does not block anything outright but rather displays a big STOP page, telling the user that he is about to look at a "forbidden" page and asking him whether he really wants to go there.</p><p>Or, as a German comedian put it, it's not a "no trespassing" sign. It's a stop sign. And people will do what they do when encountering a stop sign. They will stop, look that nobody is coming, and keep driving.</p><p>The law came under fire from freedom of speech proponents and anti-child abuse groups alike, the former for the obvious reasons, the latter for the similarly obvious reason that it doesn't change jack. All it does is that you don't see the crime anymore, it still happens and it still is a problem.</p><p>It's akin to the various pics that sprung up soon after this idea passed, like <a href="http://somluswelt.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/zensursula1a.jpg" title="wordpress.com">this one</a> [wordpress.com]. Here we see the solution applied to homelessness.</p><p>And yes, it's much like a 3 year old closing his eyes and thinking "I can't see it so it ain't there".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law states that the government manages a secret list which ISPs have to implement ( without looking at it... do n't ask me how this is supposed to work but hey , it 's a law concerning the internet , thus not necessarily feasible ) which does not block anything outright but rather displays a big STOP page , telling the user that he is about to look at a " forbidden " page and asking him whether he really wants to go there.Or , as a German comedian put it , it 's not a " no trespassing " sign .
It 's a stop sign .
And people will do what they do when encountering a stop sign .
They will stop , look that nobody is coming , and keep driving.The law came under fire from freedom of speech proponents and anti-child abuse groups alike , the former for the obvious reasons , the latter for the similarly obvious reason that it does n't change jack .
All it does is that you do n't see the crime anymore , it still happens and it still is a problem.It 's akin to the various pics that sprung up soon after this idea passed , like this one [ wordpress.com ] .
Here we see the solution applied to homelessness.And yes , it 's much like a 3 year old closing his eyes and thinking " I ca n't see it so it ai n't there " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law states that the government manages a secret list which ISPs have to implement (without looking at it... don't ask me how this is supposed to work but hey, it's a law concerning the internet, thus not necessarily feasible) which does not block anything outright but rather displays a big STOP page, telling the user that he is about to look at a "forbidden" page and asking him whether he really wants to go there.Or, as a German comedian put it, it's not a "no trespassing" sign.
It's a stop sign.
And people will do what they do when encountering a stop sign.
They will stop, look that nobody is coming, and keep driving.The law came under fire from freedom of speech proponents and anti-child abuse groups alike, the former for the obvious reasons, the latter for the similarly obvious reason that it doesn't change jack.
All it does is that you don't see the crime anymore, it still happens and it still is a problem.It's akin to the various pics that sprung up soon after this idea passed, like this one [wordpress.com].
Here we see the solution applied to homelessness.And yes, it's much like a 3 year old closing his eyes and thinking "I can't see it so it ain't there".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267274</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1259522160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general (Germany in particular) does not?</p></div></blockquote><p>I have 7 words for you:</p><p>shit,piss,fuck,cunt,mother fucker,cocksucker and tits</p><p>As you may or may not be aware those 7 words have been the subject of a SCOTUS ruling that kinda undermines the entire premise of your post.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general ( Germany in particular ) does not ? I have 7 words for you : shit,piss,fuck,cunt,mother fucker,cocksucker and titsAs you may or may not be aware those 7 words have been the subject of a SCOTUS ruling that kinda undermines the entire premise of your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general (Germany in particular) does not?I have 7 words for you:shit,piss,fuck,cunt,mother fucker,cocksucker and titsAs you may or may not be aware those 7 words have been the subject of a SCOTUS ruling that kinda undermines the entire premise of your post.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263494</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259486100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Germany has restrictive laws regarding Nazi symbols and ultra-violence. The USA has restrictive laws against showing nipples.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Germany has restrictive laws regarding Nazi symbols and ultra-violence .
The USA has restrictive laws against showing nipples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Germany has restrictive laws regarding Nazi symbols and ultra-violence.
The USA has restrictive laws against showing nipples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264350</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1259494800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  As I played with my 9 year old son, I thought about what my life was like when I was his age. The first thing that struck me was that (were it not for the rain here in London), he'd be out playing in the streets with his mates, not in some kind of house arrest situation</p></div><p>Sounds like you are part of the problem if you won't let your kid out. (Or has London started charging parents of roaming children with facilitating pedophilia?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I played with my 9 year old son , I thought about what my life was like when I was his age .
The first thing that struck me was that ( were it not for the rain here in London ) , he 'd be out playing in the streets with his mates , not in some kind of house arrest situationSounds like you are part of the problem if you wo n't let your kid out .
( Or has London started charging parents of roaming children with facilitating pedophilia ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  As I played with my 9 year old son, I thought about what my life was like when I was his age.
The first thing that struck me was that (were it not for the rain here in London), he'd be out playing in the streets with his mates, not in some kind of house arrest situationSounds like you are part of the problem if you won't let your kid out.
(Or has London started charging parents of roaming children with facilitating pedophilia?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264806</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1259499000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The USA has restrictive laws against showing nipples.</i> <br> <br>

Less than you think.  Movies?  Cable?  Books?  Games?  There aren't legal restrictions against showing nipples.  Even in public, often, it's explicitly legal.  The apparent reluctance to show, for example, nudity in a PG movie is NOT a matter of law.  The only major media channel that has substantial laws restricting what can be shown or said are those that use public airwaves (broadcast television and radio).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA has restrictive laws against showing nipples .
Less than you think .
Movies ? Cable ?
Books ? Games ?
There are n't legal restrictions against showing nipples .
Even in public , often , it 's explicitly legal .
The apparent reluctance to show , for example , nudity in a PG movie is NOT a matter of law .
The only major media channel that has substantial laws restricting what can be shown or said are those that use public airwaves ( broadcast television and radio ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA has restrictive laws against showing nipples.
Less than you think.
Movies?  Cable?
Books?  Games?
There aren't legal restrictions against showing nipples.
Even in public, often, it's explicitly legal.
The apparent reluctance to show, for example, nudity in a PG movie is NOT a matter of law.
The only major media channel that has substantial laws restricting what can be shown or said are those that use public airwaves (broadcast television and radio).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264388</id>
	<title>Exactly.</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1259495040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The really big problem is not the child porn; the problem is that with a censorship platform in place, it wouldn't take long to abuse it. In fact, IIRC, there already were proposals for blocks of other content immediately after the law was passed.<br>
<br>
So we'd have a secret list of websites nobody can visit, which can contain just about any kind of website deemed "bad", with no public oversight, no means of controlling it and - in the first draft of the law - the always-present looming threat of your visit being logged and you being under investigation when you visit the website. Of course with no prior warning whatsoever.<br>
<br>
Oh, and this came from the same administration that had the awesome idea of putting trojans on people's computers/PDAs/smartphones to investigate them, so with the law as written in the first draft we'd possibly be in "visit the wrong website and the BKA can rifle through your hard drive remotely" territory.<br>
<br>
That's not just censorship, that's a whole censorfleet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The really big problem is not the child porn ; the problem is that with a censorship platform in place , it would n't take long to abuse it .
In fact , IIRC , there already were proposals for blocks of other content immediately after the law was passed .
So we 'd have a secret list of websites nobody can visit , which can contain just about any kind of website deemed " bad " , with no public oversight , no means of controlling it and - in the first draft of the law - the always-present looming threat of your visit being logged and you being under investigation when you visit the website .
Of course with no prior warning whatsoever .
Oh , and this came from the same administration that had the awesome idea of putting trojans on people 's computers/PDAs/smartphones to investigate them , so with the law as written in the first draft we 'd possibly be in " visit the wrong website and the BKA can rifle through your hard drive remotely " territory .
That 's not just censorship , that 's a whole censorfleet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really big problem is not the child porn; the problem is that with a censorship platform in place, it wouldn't take long to abuse it.
In fact, IIRC, there already were proposals for blocks of other content immediately after the law was passed.
So we'd have a secret list of websites nobody can visit, which can contain just about any kind of website deemed "bad", with no public oversight, no means of controlling it and - in the first draft of the law - the always-present looming threat of your visit being logged and you being under investigation when you visit the website.
Of course with no prior warning whatsoever.
Oh, and this came from the same administration that had the awesome idea of putting trojans on people's computers/PDAs/smartphones to investigate them, so with the law as written in the first draft we'd possibly be in "visit the wrong website and the BKA can rifle through your hard drive remotely" territory.
That's not just censorship, that's a whole censorfleet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263562</id>
	<title>Censorship?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259486880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all I wonder why you always use the term "censorship" if it is clearly not appropriated?<br>The law is about blocking a web site, that was found distributing child porn. That is not censorship. Censorship is if you want to express something (either privately e.g. as a letter or public e.g. as a book) and you have to ask a censor first for permission. That is censorship. E.g. in the former East German Republic you could not publish a book without asking a censor first. And if he said: "no!" you not only could not publish it but you where in deep shit. And furthermore a censor usually has not to explain why he said no. <b>That</b> is censorship. I would say there is no "western country" where we have any kind of censorship except for field post mailed by soldiers to their homes.</p><p>Second, in the case of this law, there was no judge involved for blocking a web site but a simple agency would do that. Furthermore the victim of such an agency had not much at hands to fight this blocking (e.g. if his domain was hijacked or DNS was abused to redirect to a child porn side, he found his domain blocked). The agency itself hat the obligation to "check from time to time" if the reason for blocking still existed, but had no defined time frames for that. The main objections are that you can't do much if you got blocked<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so the majority of the thechies are against this law, obviously.</p><p>angel'o'sphere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all I wonder why you always use the term " censorship " if it is clearly not appropriated ? The law is about blocking a web site , that was found distributing child porn .
That is not censorship .
Censorship is if you want to express something ( either privately e.g .
as a letter or public e.g .
as a book ) and you have to ask a censor first for permission .
That is censorship .
E.g. in the former East German Republic you could not publish a book without asking a censor first .
And if he said : " no !
" you not only could not publish it but you where in deep shit .
And furthermore a censor usually has not to explain why he said no .
That is censorship .
I would say there is no " western country " where we have any kind of censorship except for field post mailed by soldiers to their homes.Second , in the case of this law , there was no judge involved for blocking a web site but a simple agency would do that .
Furthermore the victim of such an agency had not much at hands to fight this blocking ( e.g .
if his domain was hijacked or DNS was abused to redirect to a child porn side , he found his domain blocked ) .
The agency itself hat the obligation to " check from time to time " if the reason for blocking still existed , but had no defined time frames for that .
The main objections are that you ca n't do much if you got blocked ... so the majority of the thechies are against this law , obviously.angel'o'sphere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all I wonder why you always use the term "censorship" if it is clearly not appropriated?The law is about blocking a web site, that was found distributing child porn.
That is not censorship.
Censorship is if you want to express something (either privately e.g.
as a letter or public e.g.
as a book) and you have to ask a censor first for permission.
That is censorship.
E.g. in the former East German Republic you could not publish a book without asking a censor first.
And if he said: "no!
" you not only could not publish it but you where in deep shit.
And furthermore a censor usually has not to explain why he said no.
That is censorship.
I would say there is no "western country" where we have any kind of censorship except for field post mailed by soldiers to their homes.Second, in the case of this law, there was no judge involved for blocking a web site but a simple agency would do that.
Furthermore the victim of such an agency had not much at hands to fight this blocking (e.g.
if his domain was hijacked or DNS was abused to redirect to a child porn side, he found his domain blocked).
The agency itself hat the obligation to "check from time to time" if the reason for blocking still existed, but had no defined time frames for that.
The main objections are that you can't do much if you got blocked ... so the majority of the thechies are against this law, obviously.angel'o'sphere</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264440</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1259495520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The German President is the "pet" of our Chancellor Merkel. And as the law was only required to let the social democrats look like fools (which worked perfectly) it can now be dropped. However, this would need normally another law. And this would mean a lot of discussion. And it would look bad for the present neo-liberal/neo-conservative government. So the best way was to call the President and tell him to stop the law. And now it can be dropped or held for some time and dropped later. As the actual government messed up a lot in the first month, I guess they want to reduce possible additional hazards. (they messed up in Afghanistan too the former minister for defense (what an euphemism) who was then the minister of labour resign just this weekend, because his misjudgments).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The German President is the " pet " of our Chancellor Merkel .
And as the law was only required to let the social democrats look like fools ( which worked perfectly ) it can now be dropped .
However , this would need normally another law .
And this would mean a lot of discussion .
And it would look bad for the present neo-liberal/neo-conservative government .
So the best way was to call the President and tell him to stop the law .
And now it can be dropped or held for some time and dropped later .
As the actual government messed up a lot in the first month , I guess they want to reduce possible additional hazards .
( they messed up in Afghanistan too the former minister for defense ( what an euphemism ) who was then the minister of labour resign just this weekend , because his misjudgments ) .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The German President is the "pet" of our Chancellor Merkel.
And as the law was only required to let the social democrats look like fools (which worked perfectly) it can now be dropped.
However, this would need normally another law.
And this would mean a lot of discussion.
And it would look bad for the present neo-liberal/neo-conservative government.
So the best way was to call the President and tell him to stop the law.
And now it can be dropped or held for some time and dropped later.
As the actual government messed up a lot in the first month, I guess they want to reduce possible additional hazards.
(they messed up in Afghanistan too the former minister for defense (what an euphemism) who was then the minister of labour resign just this weekend, because his misjudgments).
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266850</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1259518260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, paedophiles exist, and so does child porn, but the NUMBER of paedophiles hasn't increased, has it? If it has, nobody's saying why.</p></div><p>The raw number probably has, yes. If X\% of people are pedophiles, then as the number of people goes up, so does the number of pedophiles.</p><p>Even the percentage may have gone up. That's because many disorders can be caused by childhood trauma: sources of trauma in childhood often become sources of attraction in adulthood. If one person is molested as a child and grows up to be a pedophile, and then he has multiple victims, he may create multiple pedophiles in the next generation.</p><p>Your overall point is right on, though. There still aren't enough pedophiles to justify the amount of hysteria, and obsessing over child porn does nothing at all to protect real live children anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , paedophiles exist , and so does child porn , but the NUMBER of paedophiles has n't increased , has it ?
If it has , nobody 's saying why.The raw number probably has , yes .
If X \ % of people are pedophiles , then as the number of people goes up , so does the number of pedophiles.Even the percentage may have gone up .
That 's because many disorders can be caused by childhood trauma : sources of trauma in childhood often become sources of attraction in adulthood .
If one person is molested as a child and grows up to be a pedophile , and then he has multiple victims , he may create multiple pedophiles in the next generation.Your overall point is right on , though .
There still are n't enough pedophiles to justify the amount of hysteria , and obsessing over child porn does nothing at all to protect real live children anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, paedophiles exist, and so does child porn, but the NUMBER of paedophiles hasn't increased, has it?
If it has, nobody's saying why.The raw number probably has, yes.
If X\% of people are pedophiles, then as the number of people goes up, so does the number of pedophiles.Even the percentage may have gone up.
That's because many disorders can be caused by childhood trauma: sources of trauma in childhood often become sources of attraction in adulthood.
If one person is molested as a child and grows up to be a pedophile, and then he has multiple victims, he may create multiple pedophiles in the next generation.Your overall point is right on, though.
There still aren't enough pedophiles to justify the amount of hysteria, and obsessing over child porn does nothing at all to protect real live children anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263498</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259486160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The idea that the president can't veto a law, and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little.  The German system in general bugs me a little I suppose, because I place such high value in free speech and things Germany apparently values differently.</p></div><p>Well, we had a few problems the last time one person had to much power...</p><p>The highest value according to the German constitution ( http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm ) is human dignity:<br><b>(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.</b></p><p>One result of this value system is that the highest German court ruled that it is against the constitution to fire on captured civilian airplanes, even if this action could save lives:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftsicherheitsgesetz</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that the president ca n't veto a law , and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little .
The German system in general bugs me a little I suppose , because I place such high value in free speech and things Germany apparently values differently.Well , we had a few problems the last time one person had to much power...The highest value according to the German constitution ( http : //www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm ) is human dignity : ( 1 ) Human dignity shall be inviolable .
To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.One result of this value system is that the highest German court ruled that it is against the constitution to fire on captured civilian airplanes , even if this action could save lives : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftsicherheitsgesetz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that the president can't veto a law, and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little.
The German system in general bugs me a little I suppose, because I place such high value in free speech and things Germany apparently values differently.Well, we had a few problems the last time one person had to much power...The highest value according to the German constitution ( http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm ) is human dignity:(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable.
To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.One result of this value system is that the highest German court ruled that it is against the constitution to fire on captured civilian airplanes, even if this action could save lives:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftsicherheitsgesetz
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30273738</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>TempeTerra</author>
	<datestamp>1259572020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>One minor clarification to your post is that you don't vote for a party, it only seems that way because the parties hand out "how to vote" leaflets and most people simply copy their favorite party's recommendations.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not sure what you mean there; in New Zealand under the MMP system we specifically vote for a party to run the country. We also have a separate vote for our local representative which need not correlate with the party vote.</p><p>The size of parliament can vary from term to term due to a difference between the number of MPs a party is allocated based on party votes and the number of MPs who have the right to sit in parliament because they won their electorate vote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One minor clarification to your post is that you do n't vote for a party , it only seems that way because the parties hand out " how to vote " leaflets and most people simply copy their favorite party 's recommendations.I 'm not sure what you mean there ; in New Zealand under the MMP system we specifically vote for a party to run the country .
We also have a separate vote for our local representative which need not correlate with the party vote.The size of parliament can vary from term to term due to a difference between the number of MPs a party is allocated based on party votes and the number of MPs who have the right to sit in parliament because they won their electorate vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One minor clarification to your post is that you don't vote for a party, it only seems that way because the parties hand out "how to vote" leaflets and most people simply copy their favorite party's recommendations.I'm not sure what you mean there; in New Zealand under the MMP system we specifically vote for a party to run the country.
We also have a separate vote for our local representative which need not correlate with the party vote.The size of parliament can vary from term to term due to a difference between the number of MPs a party is allocated based on party votes and the number of MPs who have the right to sit in parliament because they won their electorate vote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265662</id>
	<title>Not about child porn...</title>
	<author>Secret Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1259508780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was just the "justification" for it.  The law really kills free speech in a most horrific way.  In fact, pretty much every German freaked out over this and protested (unlike when similar things happened/happens in the US/Canada).  It's nice that at least one politician is trying to get rid of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was just the " justification " for it .
The law really kills free speech in a most horrific way .
In fact , pretty much every German freaked out over this and protested ( unlike when similar things happened/happens in the US/Canada ) .
It 's nice that at least one politician is trying to get rid of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was just the "justification" for it.
The law really kills free speech in a most horrific way.
In fact, pretty much every German freaked out over this and protested (unlike when similar things happened/happens in the US/Canada).
It's nice that at least one politician is trying to get rid of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266626</id>
	<title>The court system is even stranger from a US POV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259516400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The trials in Germany don't behave anything like trials in the US. It's even beyond the Napoleonic system, where precedent isn't as big a deal. They don't do the whole adversarial thing. Basically, people talk until the judge decides s/he knows what actually happened, and produces a ruling.
<p>
Obviously, this is all based on on thing I over[mis]heard a while back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trials in Germany do n't behave anything like trials in the US .
It 's even beyond the Napoleonic system , where precedent is n't as big a deal .
They do n't do the whole adversarial thing .
Basically , people talk until the judge decides s/he knows what actually happened , and produces a ruling .
Obviously , this is all based on on thing I over [ mis ] heard a while back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trials in Germany don't behave anything like trials in the US.
It's even beyond the Napoleonic system, where precedent isn't as big a deal.
They don't do the whole adversarial thing.
Basically, people talk until the judge decides s/he knows what actually happened, and produces a ruling.
Obviously, this is all based on on thing I over[mis]heard a while back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264936</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1259500080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, paedophiles exist, and so does child porn, but the NUMBER of paedophiles hasn't increased, has it?</p></div><p>It most likely has, along with the rest of the human race. The percentage, on the other hand, I'd bet that it has stayed pretty much constant for the past few centuries or so.</p><p>But I agree with the spirit of your post, reminds me of that old quote, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Poor Roosevelt must be turning in his grave seeing so many people shitting their pants with any mention of pedophiles, terrorists, rapists and such that appears on modern media.</p><p>Ohh, and happy birthday<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , paedophiles exist , and so does child porn , but the NUMBER of paedophiles has n't increased , has it ? It most likely has , along with the rest of the human race .
The percentage , on the other hand , I 'd bet that it has stayed pretty much constant for the past few centuries or so.But I agree with the spirit of your post , reminds me of that old quote , " the only thing we have to fear is fear itself " .
Poor Roosevelt must be turning in his grave seeing so many people shitting their pants with any mention of pedophiles , terrorists , rapists and such that appears on modern media.Ohh , and happy birthday : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, paedophiles exist, and so does child porn, but the NUMBER of paedophiles hasn't increased, has it?It most likely has, along with the rest of the human race.
The percentage, on the other hand, I'd bet that it has stayed pretty much constant for the past few centuries or so.But I agree with the spirit of your post, reminds me of that old quote, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".
Poor Roosevelt must be turning in his grave seeing so many people shitting their pants with any mention of pedophiles, terrorists, rapists and such that appears on modern media.Ohh, and happy birthday :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268708</id>
	<title>Re:Matter of framing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259584740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What shall I say? We Germans are just very thorough.<br>After we killed a couple hundred millions of people, we recognized this was a bad thing and wanted to make sure this never happens again. Therefore the laws, and a constitution that is basically build around the thought: "Never again".<br>I fail to see how this is a bad thing, and if you don't, you might want to stand in front of one of the war memorials for some time and read the names of the fallen. We have those in almost every city or village in Germany - and the lists are very long. In my home village, I recognize many of the surnames.<br>Never again.</p><p>And your beloved "freedom"? Simply put: There is no freedom to resurrect an ideology that kills. And there shall never be.<br>And I am pretty sure, even good old Mills would agree with me on that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What shall I say ?
We Germans are just very thorough.After we killed a couple hundred millions of people , we recognized this was a bad thing and wanted to make sure this never happens again .
Therefore the laws , and a constitution that is basically build around the thought : " Never again " .I fail to see how this is a bad thing , and if you do n't , you might want to stand in front of one of the war memorials for some time and read the names of the fallen .
We have those in almost every city or village in Germany - and the lists are very long .
In my home village , I recognize many of the surnames.Never again.And your beloved " freedom " ?
Simply put : There is no freedom to resurrect an ideology that kills .
And there shall never be.And I am pretty sure , even good old Mills would agree with me on that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What shall I say?
We Germans are just very thorough.After we killed a couple hundred millions of people, we recognized this was a bad thing and wanted to make sure this never happens again.
Therefore the laws, and a constitution that is basically build around the thought: "Never again".I fail to see how this is a bad thing, and if you don't, you might want to stand in front of one of the war memorials for some time and read the names of the fallen.
We have those in almost every city or village in Germany - and the lists are very long.
In my home village, I recognize many of the surnames.Never again.And your beloved "freedom"?
Simply put: There is no freedom to resurrect an ideology that kills.
And there shall never be.And I am pretty sure, even good old Mills would agree with me on that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263918</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259490780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The German constitution starts with the words:</p><p>"Die W&#252;rde des Menschen ist unantastbar."</p><p>Translated:</p><p>"The dignity of man must not be violated."</p><p>That is what is valued higher than free speech. And I think people agree for two reasons:</p><p>1. The Nazis heavily violated the dignity of people. That is what disgusts us most about them. They dehumanized people on a massive scale. The killing is just a consequence of that. That is why we think that a life with dignity should be guaranteed for everyone. And this is for example why we have so much "socialism", we want that even the poor, the ill and the weak have their dignity. No one should be forced to beg for their live.</p><p>2. I think most people don't really see what is gained by arranging the values with other priorities. It surely is important to be able to discuss and state ones opinion, but why is it important that I can ridicule everyone? Why is it important that I can publish racist jokes? Why is it important that I can make heavy accusations without any evidence? Why is that more important than dignity?</p><p>Especially given the example of the USA. We know that freedom of speech is valued highest there. But we can't see that it works out good for you. You have freedom of speech in theory but in practice everyone with a different opinion is labeled unpatriotic and unamaerican. You can say what you want but your voice is easily marginalized without a second thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The German constitution starts with the words : " Die W   rde des Menschen ist unantastbar .
" Translated : " The dignity of man must not be violated .
" That is what is valued higher than free speech .
And I think people agree for two reasons : 1 .
The Nazis heavily violated the dignity of people .
That is what disgusts us most about them .
They dehumanized people on a massive scale .
The killing is just a consequence of that .
That is why we think that a life with dignity should be guaranteed for everyone .
And this is for example why we have so much " socialism " , we want that even the poor , the ill and the weak have their dignity .
No one should be forced to beg for their live.2 .
I think most people do n't really see what is gained by arranging the values with other priorities .
It surely is important to be able to discuss and state ones opinion , but why is it important that I can ridicule everyone ?
Why is it important that I can publish racist jokes ?
Why is it important that I can make heavy accusations without any evidence ?
Why is that more important than dignity ? Especially given the example of the USA .
We know that freedom of speech is valued highest there .
But we ca n't see that it works out good for you .
You have freedom of speech in theory but in practice everyone with a different opinion is labeled unpatriotic and unamaerican .
You can say what you want but your voice is easily marginalized without a second thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The German constitution starts with the words:"Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar.
"Translated:"The dignity of man must not be violated.
"That is what is valued higher than free speech.
And I think people agree for two reasons:1.
The Nazis heavily violated the dignity of people.
That is what disgusts us most about them.
They dehumanized people on a massive scale.
The killing is just a consequence of that.
That is why we think that a life with dignity should be guaranteed for everyone.
And this is for example why we have so much "socialism", we want that even the poor, the ill and the weak have their dignity.
No one should be forced to beg for their live.2.
I think most people don't really see what is gained by arranging the values with other priorities.
It surely is important to be able to discuss and state ones opinion, but why is it important that I can ridicule everyone?
Why is it important that I can publish racist jokes?
Why is it important that I can make heavy accusations without any evidence?
Why is that more important than dignity?Especially given the example of the USA.
We know that freedom of speech is valued highest there.
But we can't see that it works out good for you.
You have freedom of speech in theory but in practice everyone with a different opinion is labeled unpatriotic and unamaerican.
You can say what you want but your voice is easily marginalized without a second thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265666</id>
	<title>I'd call it .. "population control" ...</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1259508780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's already known as birth control<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>although, it is just an excuse to get tighter control over the people to my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's already known as birth control ...although , it is just an excuse to get tighter control over the people to my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's already known as birth control ...although, it is just an excuse to get tighter control over the people to my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268488</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That defies logic. In a situation where you have two outcomes, neither of which favourable, the lesser of the two should be sought. I understand that the whole "sacrifice one to save many" argument has been done ad nauseum, but it blows my mind that in a situation where you have a hijacked plane on a collision course with any populated area that it would be illegal to destroy the aircraft before it hits its target.<br> <br>In my eyes, the lack of action is the bigger infraction of your constitution: You say human dignity is inviolable, yet you criminalise the limitation of loss of life. That's just stoopid.<br> <br>EDIT: If the passengers on the plane don't have the guts or common decency to try and save those who the plane is targetted at, as well as themselves, they deserve to be fired upon. Dead is dead; At that point, you have as much to lose as the hijackers. Quick prayer (if that's your thing) and get Medieval on their ass with the First Aid oxygen tank in the overhead storage (usually located above a red triangle on the cabin sides, FYI). Just my opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That defies logic .
In a situation where you have two outcomes , neither of which favourable , the lesser of the two should be sought .
I understand that the whole " sacrifice one to save many " argument has been done ad nauseum , but it blows my mind that in a situation where you have a hijacked plane on a collision course with any populated area that it would be illegal to destroy the aircraft before it hits its target .
In my eyes , the lack of action is the bigger infraction of your constitution : You say human dignity is inviolable , yet you criminalise the limitation of loss of life .
That 's just stoopid .
EDIT : If the passengers on the plane do n't have the guts or common decency to try and save those who the plane is targetted at , as well as themselves , they deserve to be fired upon .
Dead is dead ; At that point , you have as much to lose as the hijackers .
Quick prayer ( if that 's your thing ) and get Medieval on their ass with the First Aid oxygen tank in the overhead storage ( usually located above a red triangle on the cabin sides , FYI ) .
Just my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That defies logic.
In a situation where you have two outcomes, neither of which favourable, the lesser of the two should be sought.
I understand that the whole "sacrifice one to save many" argument has been done ad nauseum, but it blows my mind that in a situation where you have a hijacked plane on a collision course with any populated area that it would be illegal to destroy the aircraft before it hits its target.
In my eyes, the lack of action is the bigger infraction of your constitution: You say human dignity is inviolable, yet you criminalise the limitation of loss of life.
That's just stoopid.
EDIT: If the passengers on the plane don't have the guts or common decency to try and save those who the plane is targetted at, as well as themselves, they deserve to be fired upon.
Dead is dead; At that point, you have as much to lose as the hijackers.
Quick prayer (if that's your thing) and get Medieval on their ass with the First Aid oxygen tank in the overhead storage (usually located above a red triangle on the cabin sides, FYI).
Just my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264434</id>
	<title>Re:Adolf Hitler agrees!</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259495460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cute, but with many eyes all fakequotes are shallow:</p><p><a href="http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/08/having-fun-falsifying-history/" title="sydwalker.info">http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/08/having-fun-falsifying-history/</a> [sydwalker.info]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cute , but with many eyes all fakequotes are shallow : http : //sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/08/having-fun-falsifying-history/ [ sydwalker.info ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cute, but with many eyes all fakequotes are shallow:http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/08/having-fun-falsifying-history/ [sydwalker.info]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264008</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>he-sk</author>
	<datestamp>1259491860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>The idea that the president can't veto a law, and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little.</em></p></div> </blockquote><p>As others have said, the German president is mostly a figurehead and the real executive power lies with the chancellor.</p><p>In the German system, there are three checks against an overzealous parliament: First, the president can refuse to sign a law as has happened here, but only for a very limited set of reasons.</p><p>Secondly, many laws require to be passed by the Bundestag (upper chamber of the parliament, made up of elected members) AND the Bundesrat, the lower chamber that is made up of the executives of the German states. (Remember that Germany is a federation of states just like the US.) The Bundesrat just held up the EU-US SWIFT deal, so it appears to be working as a check.</p><p>Finally, there's the constitutional court which can be called upon by certain constitutional institutions directly or indirectly by anybody as a court of last appeal (not really, but it works that way in practice.) The court actually has a very favorable view in Germany, because it has reigned in some of the excesses of the parliament, however there is a growing concern that lawmakers just keep throwing shitty laws at the court that it will fold eventually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that the president ca n't veto a law , and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little .
As others have said , the German president is mostly a figurehead and the real executive power lies with the chancellor.In the German system , there are three checks against an overzealous parliament : First , the president can refuse to sign a law as has happened here , but only for a very limited set of reasons.Secondly , many laws require to be passed by the Bundestag ( upper chamber of the parliament , made up of elected members ) AND the Bundesrat , the lower chamber that is made up of the executives of the German states .
( Remember that Germany is a federation of states just like the US .
) The Bundesrat just held up the EU-US SWIFT deal , so it appears to be working as a check.Finally , there 's the constitutional court which can be called upon by certain constitutional institutions directly or indirectly by anybody as a court of last appeal ( not really , but it works that way in practice .
) The court actually has a very favorable view in Germany , because it has reigned in some of the excesses of the parliament , however there is a growing concern that lawmakers just keep throwing shitty laws at the court that it will fold eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The idea that the president can't veto a law, and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little.
As others have said, the German president is mostly a figurehead and the real executive power lies with the chancellor.In the German system, there are three checks against an overzealous parliament: First, the president can refuse to sign a law as has happened here, but only for a very limited set of reasons.Secondly, many laws require to be passed by the Bundestag (upper chamber of the parliament, made up of elected members) AND the Bundesrat, the lower chamber that is made up of the executives of the German states.
(Remember that Germany is a federation of states just like the US.
) The Bundesrat just held up the EU-US SWIFT deal, so it appears to be working as a check.Finally, there's the constitutional court which can be called upon by certain constitutional institutions directly or indirectly by anybody as a court of last appeal (not really, but it works that way in practice.
) The court actually has a very favorable view in Germany, because it has reigned in some of the excesses of the parliament, however there is a growing concern that lawmakers just keep throwing shitty laws at the court that it will fold eventually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30276838</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Lunzo</author>
	<datestamp>1259583660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The Australian Governor General signs off on every bill which becomes law, so in theory she can veto proposed legislation or send it back to the Senate for ammendment. By convention they don't use their veto powers, however I would hope that if a bill was grossly unconstitutional they would use the veto power.
</p><p>
The parent post is correct about the GG being able to sack the government and call a new election. This has happened once in 108 years of federal Australian politics and is one of the most contentious events in our political history.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Australian Governor General signs off on every bill which becomes law , so in theory she can veto proposed legislation or send it back to the Senate for ammendment .
By convention they do n't use their veto powers , however I would hope that if a bill was grossly unconstitutional they would use the veto power .
The parent post is correct about the GG being able to sack the government and call a new election .
This has happened once in 108 years of federal Australian politics and is one of the most contentious events in our political history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The Australian Governor General signs off on every bill which becomes law, so in theory she can veto proposed legislation or send it back to the Senate for ammendment.
By convention they don't use their veto powers, however I would hope that if a bill was grossly unconstitutional they would use the veto power.
The parent post is correct about the GG being able to sack the government and call a new election.
This has happened once in 108 years of federal Australian politics and is one of the most contentious events in our political history.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264210</id>
	<title>Re:Looks like he is a paedophile criminal now...</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1259493780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... or at least according to the former family affairs minister - she said that everyone who is against this law is either a paedophile criminal or their lobby.</p></div><p>The same thing happens here in Australia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... or at least according to the former family affairs minister - she said that everyone who is against this law is either a paedophile criminal or their lobby.The same thing happens here in Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or at least according to the former family affairs minister - she said that everyone who is against this law is either a paedophile criminal or their lobby.The same thing happens here in Australia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263884</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1259490600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>This may come off as a troll, but I'm legitimately curious:I'm from the US.  I have an adequate understanding of various forms of government, including parliamentary forms, but Germany's constitution and government really just drive me crazy with lack of understanding.  I think perhaps a big part of that is cultural and being raised in a country with different values.  The idea that the president can't veto a law, and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little.  The German system in general bugs me a little I suppose, because I place such high value in free speech and things Germany apparently values differently.  I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying I don't understand.What I'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are, and if anyone knows -WHY- they exist.  Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general (Germany in particular) does not?Maybe someone who has lived in the US and Germany and understands both governments could just write up a brief opinion, because I'm trying to understand without being a "US Imperialist" and saying OH WELL THEY'RE JUST WRONG AND NEED LIBERATIN' but I'd like to get an insider's view.</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may come off as a troll , but I 'm legitimately curious : I 'm from the US .
I have an adequate understanding of various forms of government , including parliamentary forms , but Germany 's constitution and government really just drive me crazy with lack of understanding .
I think perhaps a big part of that is cultural and being raised in a country with different values .
The idea that the president ca n't veto a law , and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little .
The German system in general bugs me a little I suppose , because I place such high value in free speech and things Germany apparently values differently .
I 'm not saying one is better than the other , I 'm just saying I do n't understand.What I 'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are , and if anyone knows -WHY- they exist .
Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general ( Germany in particular ) does not ? Maybe someone who has lived in the US and Germany and understands both governments could just write up a brief opinion , because I 'm trying to understand without being a " US Imperialist " and saying OH WELL THEY 'RE JUST WRONG AND NEED LIBERATIN ' but I 'd like to get an insider 's view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may come off as a troll, but I'm legitimately curious:I'm from the US.
I have an adequate understanding of various forms of government, including parliamentary forms, but Germany's constitution and government really just drive me crazy with lack of understanding.
I think perhaps a big part of that is cultural and being raised in a country with different values.
The idea that the president can't veto a law, and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little.
The German system in general bugs me a little I suppose, because I place such high value in free speech and things Germany apparently values differently.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying I don't understand.What I'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are, and if anyone knows -WHY- they exist.
Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general (Germany in particular) does not?Maybe someone who has lived in the US and Germany and understands both governments could just write up a brief opinion, because I'm trying to understand without being a "US Imperialist" and saying OH WELL THEY'RE JUST WRONG AND NEED LIBERATIN' but I'd like to get an insider's view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266982</id>
	<title>Re:Matter of framing</title>
	<author>Xelios</author>
	<datestamp>1259519400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US has laws against hatespeech and inciting to riot, and they're pretty big on freedom of speech. When you look carefully just about every country has its limits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US has laws against hatespeech and inciting to riot , and they 're pretty big on freedom of speech .
When you look carefully just about every country has its limits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US has laws against hatespeech and inciting to riot, and they're pretty big on freedom of speech.
When you look carefully just about every country has its limits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263770</id>
	<title>Re:Matter of framing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259489580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ban on Nazi symbols was brought into play while the Allied occupied Germany. Furthermore, can you imagine the national and international backlash if a politician honestly wanted to get rid of this law? Two words: political suicide.</p><p>Secondly, there's no real censorship on games/movies - it's just that games which are deemed unfit for children and youths (i.e. below 16/18 years of age) may not be shown / advertised for during "normal" hours, i.e. before 2200h. From 2200h to 2300h you may broadcast movies for 16 years and up, after 2300h you may broadcast movies 18 years and up. Some movies / games / songs may not be advertised / shown publicly at all - but you can still buy them in a brick and mortar shop (after you have shown yourself to be older than 18 years, of course).</p><p>The amount of titles which are actually banned from being sold (not owned. You may own Mein Kampf, but you may not sell it) are actually only quite a few titles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ban on Nazi symbols was brought into play while the Allied occupied Germany .
Furthermore , can you imagine the national and international backlash if a politician honestly wanted to get rid of this law ?
Two words : political suicide.Secondly , there 's no real censorship on games/movies - it 's just that games which are deemed unfit for children and youths ( i.e .
below 16/18 years of age ) may not be shown / advertised for during " normal " hours , i.e .
before 2200h .
From 2200h to 2300h you may broadcast movies for 16 years and up , after 2300h you may broadcast movies 18 years and up .
Some movies / games / songs may not be advertised / shown publicly at all - but you can still buy them in a brick and mortar shop ( after you have shown yourself to be older than 18 years , of course ) .The amount of titles which are actually banned from being sold ( not owned .
You may own Mein Kampf , but you may not sell it ) are actually only quite a few titles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ban on Nazi symbols was brought into play while the Allied occupied Germany.
Furthermore, can you imagine the national and international backlash if a politician honestly wanted to get rid of this law?
Two words: political suicide.Secondly, there's no real censorship on games/movies - it's just that games which are deemed unfit for children and youths (i.e.
below 16/18 years of age) may not be shown / advertised for during "normal" hours, i.e.
before 2200h.
From 2200h to 2300h you may broadcast movies for 16 years and up, after 2300h you may broadcast movies 18 years and up.
Some movies / games / songs may not be advertised / shown publicly at all - but you can still buy them in a brick and mortar shop (after you have shown yourself to be older than 18 years, of course).The amount of titles which are actually banned from being sold (not owned.
You may own Mein Kampf, but you may not sell it) are actually only quite a few titles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265090</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259501820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The word you should look up is hysteria. If you keep telling people that you're besieged by $bad\_group, some will believe it. The longer you tell it and the more it hits home with people, the more people will believe it.</p><p>Now, what hits more dead on than your kids wellbeing being at stake?</p><p>The number of pedophiles has not increased, at least it's unlikely it has. The number of reported crimes has, actually, for two reasons: First, due to hysteria it's getting increasingly easy to be accused and tried (and remember, being tried as a pedo already makes you one, at least in the eyes of the public. After all, if there had been no reason...). If I find a crying kid out in the street, I will DECIDEDLY NOT go out and try to help unless I can be certain that the child is somehow injured AND others have seen that I had NOTHING to do with it. It's sad, I know, but the very last thing I need is that I go out, try to help this child and be sacked by a hysteric parent thinking I tried to molest their little darling when I was only checking out why a kid was standing alone in the street crying.</p><p>The other reason is even sadder. Because the punishment for molesting a child has been upped and upped beyond any sensibility by now, the difference between going to jail for molesting a child and outright killing him or her afterwards is minimal. The chance to get caught after you kill the only witness is much lower. The result is easy to figure out.</p><p>So yes, the amount of <i>reported</i> crimes is on the rise. Fortunately not only because of these two reasons but also because we teach our kids today that it is NEVER their fault if they're touched inappropriately, and parents are no longer willing to look the other way if someone dear to them is the culprit (as it is in almost all cases, btw, it's rarely the bad random stranger) and actually believe their kids if they finally muster the strenght to tell.</p><p>Also, the media today take every single case and blow it up. Because it's interesting, people are sensitized already and eager to swallow any story furthering an already existing hysteria.</p><p>But to answer the question, what's going on: personally, I think human needs a nemesis. Some villain, some evildoer, some sort of boogeyman to fear, blame or at least hate. Now, it's not really popular to hate in our PC world. You must not hate others. Not because they're black, not because they're jewish, not because they are handicapped, you must not hate anyone. But we need someone to hate. So let's hate pedophiles. Judging from how they're characterized by psychologists, it's a group of people who rarely have a lot of self esteem and prefer kids because they feel "stronger". Not really a group that's likely to fight back, is it? Perfect.</p><p>Furthermore, a group that makes the perfect boogeyman. They're everywhere, ya know. You can't tell if someone is one. It could be your neighbor that looks really normal and all, but secretly in his basement there's kiddy-sized shackles tacked to a board I'm sure. It's a bit like the communist craze in the 50s when you think about it. Could be anyone, have to watch out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The word you should look up is hysteria .
If you keep telling people that you 're besieged by $ bad \ _group , some will believe it .
The longer you tell it and the more it hits home with people , the more people will believe it.Now , what hits more dead on than your kids wellbeing being at stake ? The number of pedophiles has not increased , at least it 's unlikely it has .
The number of reported crimes has , actually , for two reasons : First , due to hysteria it 's getting increasingly easy to be accused and tried ( and remember , being tried as a pedo already makes you one , at least in the eyes of the public .
After all , if there had been no reason... ) .
If I find a crying kid out in the street , I will DECIDEDLY NOT go out and try to help unless I can be certain that the child is somehow injured AND others have seen that I had NOTHING to do with it .
It 's sad , I know , but the very last thing I need is that I go out , try to help this child and be sacked by a hysteric parent thinking I tried to molest their little darling when I was only checking out why a kid was standing alone in the street crying.The other reason is even sadder .
Because the punishment for molesting a child has been upped and upped beyond any sensibility by now , the difference between going to jail for molesting a child and outright killing him or her afterwards is minimal .
The chance to get caught after you kill the only witness is much lower .
The result is easy to figure out.So yes , the amount of reported crimes is on the rise .
Fortunately not only because of these two reasons but also because we teach our kids today that it is NEVER their fault if they 're touched inappropriately , and parents are no longer willing to look the other way if someone dear to them is the culprit ( as it is in almost all cases , btw , it 's rarely the bad random stranger ) and actually believe their kids if they finally muster the strenght to tell.Also , the media today take every single case and blow it up .
Because it 's interesting , people are sensitized already and eager to swallow any story furthering an already existing hysteria.But to answer the question , what 's going on : personally , I think human needs a nemesis .
Some villain , some evildoer , some sort of boogeyman to fear , blame or at least hate .
Now , it 's not really popular to hate in our PC world .
You must not hate others .
Not because they 're black , not because they 're jewish , not because they are handicapped , you must not hate anyone .
But we need someone to hate .
So let 's hate pedophiles .
Judging from how they 're characterized by psychologists , it 's a group of people who rarely have a lot of self esteem and prefer kids because they feel " stronger " .
Not really a group that 's likely to fight back , is it ?
Perfect.Furthermore , a group that makes the perfect boogeyman .
They 're everywhere , ya know .
You ca n't tell if someone is one .
It could be your neighbor that looks really normal and all , but secretly in his basement there 's kiddy-sized shackles tacked to a board I 'm sure .
It 's a bit like the communist craze in the 50s when you think about it .
Could be anyone , have to watch out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word you should look up is hysteria.
If you keep telling people that you're besieged by $bad\_group, some will believe it.
The longer you tell it and the more it hits home with people, the more people will believe it.Now, what hits more dead on than your kids wellbeing being at stake?The number of pedophiles has not increased, at least it's unlikely it has.
The number of reported crimes has, actually, for two reasons: First, due to hysteria it's getting increasingly easy to be accused and tried (and remember, being tried as a pedo already makes you one, at least in the eyes of the public.
After all, if there had been no reason...).
If I find a crying kid out in the street, I will DECIDEDLY NOT go out and try to help unless I can be certain that the child is somehow injured AND others have seen that I had NOTHING to do with it.
It's sad, I know, but the very last thing I need is that I go out, try to help this child and be sacked by a hysteric parent thinking I tried to molest their little darling when I was only checking out why a kid was standing alone in the street crying.The other reason is even sadder.
Because the punishment for molesting a child has been upped and upped beyond any sensibility by now, the difference between going to jail for molesting a child and outright killing him or her afterwards is minimal.
The chance to get caught after you kill the only witness is much lower.
The result is easy to figure out.So yes, the amount of reported crimes is on the rise.
Fortunately not only because of these two reasons but also because we teach our kids today that it is NEVER their fault if they're touched inappropriately, and parents are no longer willing to look the other way if someone dear to them is the culprit (as it is in almost all cases, btw, it's rarely the bad random stranger) and actually believe their kids if they finally muster the strenght to tell.Also, the media today take every single case and blow it up.
Because it's interesting, people are sensitized already and eager to swallow any story furthering an already existing hysteria.But to answer the question, what's going on: personally, I think human needs a nemesis.
Some villain, some evildoer, some sort of boogeyman to fear, blame or at least hate.
Now, it's not really popular to hate in our PC world.
You must not hate others.
Not because they're black, not because they're jewish, not because they are handicapped, you must not hate anyone.
But we need someone to hate.
So let's hate pedophiles.
Judging from how they're characterized by psychologists, it's a group of people who rarely have a lot of self esteem and prefer kids because they feel "stronger".
Not really a group that's likely to fight back, is it?
Perfect.Furthermore, a group that makes the perfect boogeyman.
They're everywhere, ya know.
You can't tell if someone is one.
It could be your neighbor that looks really normal and all, but secretly in his basement there's kiddy-sized shackles tacked to a board I'm sure.
It's a bit like the communist craze in the 50s when you think about it.
Could be anyone, have to watch out...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263570</id>
	<title>Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259487000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's unconstitutional, the article pressume it is constitutional, however the pedo claim is not the truth about this nasty law and he's right to refuse to sign it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's unconstitutional , the article pressume it is constitutional , however the pedo claim is not the truth about this nasty law and he 's right to refuse to sign it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's unconstitutional, the article pressume it is constitutional, however the pedo claim is not the truth about this nasty law and he's right to refuse to sign it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264236</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259493960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...(think of him as the Prime Minister).</p></div><p>Her. She's a woman.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... ( think of him as the Prime Minister ) .Her .
She 's a woman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...(think of him as the Prime Minister).Her.
She's a woman.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263636</id>
	<title>It's obvious the reason they REALLY want this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259487960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just look in the news. Notice a trend.</p><p>I'd wager the only reason they passed this law at all is to have a means of blocking torrent sites. Sad but probably true. There's plenty of far better ways to go after pedophiles, but this happens to be the only one that can easily be used to catch "pirates".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look in the news .
Notice a trend.I 'd wager the only reason they passed this law at all is to have a means of blocking torrent sites .
Sad but probably true .
There 's plenty of far better ways to go after pedophiles , but this happens to be the only one that can easily be used to catch " pirates " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look in the news.
Notice a trend.I'd wager the only reason they passed this law at all is to have a means of blocking torrent sites.
Sad but probably true.
There's plenty of far better ways to go after pedophiles, but this happens to be the only one that can easily be used to catch "pirates".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266166</id>
	<title>Re:Looks like he is a paedophile criminal now...</title>
	<author>coolforsale134</author>
	<datestamp>1259512140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]   Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76</a> [coolforsale.com]  (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp ? id = s76 [ coolforsale.com ] ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]   Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com]  (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264362</id>
	<title>Re:What is WRONG with us??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259494860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but child porn doesn't make people into paedophiles any more than Kylie Minogue makes people homosexual.</i></p><p>Kylie Minogue made <i>me</i> homosexual, she's <i>adorable</i>!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but child porn does n't make people into paedophiles any more than Kylie Minogue makes people homosexual.Kylie Minogue made me homosexual , she 's adorable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but child porn doesn't make people into paedophiles any more than Kylie Minogue makes people homosexual.Kylie Minogue made me homosexual, she's adorable!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268860</id>
	<title>Re:Additional Information</title>
	<author>moronoxyd</author>
	<datestamp>1259586960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Federal President is also ideologically associated to the CDU (although he is not allowed to be part any party), and he would be part of it, if he hadn't been elected as President. He won his election because of the support he got from the CDU. So he, too, didn't develop some common sense but is just helping his mates.</i></p><p>While the current federal president was elected with by the CDU, he does not always agree with them.<br>In the past he more than once showed mor common sense than them, so it is more than likely that he acts here on his own and not on behalf of the CDU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Federal President is also ideologically associated to the CDU ( although he is not allowed to be part any party ) , and he would be part of it , if he had n't been elected as President .
He won his election because of the support he got from the CDU .
So he , too , did n't develop some common sense but is just helping his mates.While the current federal president was elected with by the CDU , he does not always agree with them.In the past he more than once showed mor common sense than them , so it is more than likely that he acts here on his own and not on behalf of the CDU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Federal President is also ideologically associated to the CDU (although he is not allowed to be part any party), and he would be part of it, if he hadn't been elected as President.
He won his election because of the support he got from the CDU.
So he, too, didn't develop some common sense but is just helping his mates.While the current federal president was elected with by the CDU, he does not always agree with them.In the past he more than once showed mor common sense than them, so it is more than likely that he acts here on his own and not on behalf of the CDU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267202</id>
	<title>And what is a child?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259521440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, I have a really difficult time working this out. Is it an age thing, or is it a physical maturity thing?</p><p>I always frame the question like this: when I was a 14 and 15 year old boy, I certainly had sexual thoughts and<br>fantasies about some 14 and 15 year old girls, many of whom were certainly capable of reproducing, and some of whom,<br>along with my contemporary male colleagues, were certainly already *practicing" the act of coitus.</p><p>Was I a pedophile? Was I pedophile still when I turned 16? 17? 18? 21? Did those 15 year old girls suddenly<br>stop being sexually enticing?<br>Now at 45, the attraction has certainly diminished, and I still do nothing at<br>all if such attraction reoccurs, but some now 15 year old girls look hot, flirt like crazy, and fuck their 15 year<br>old boyfriends. And because I don't and never have fucked any 15 year olds, but still remember wanting to and<br>trying to when I was 15, I'm apparently a pervert and should be locked up or castrated.</p><p>Times past, girls were getting married and pregnant at 15 as a common matter, and now they're forbidden<br>fruit to even think about. I tell you what's gone wrong - humanity took a fear pill, liked it too much, and now has<br>an addiction to being scared - we just love it - it gives us an excuse to stop thinking, which always was too much<br>like hard work anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , I have a really difficult time working this out .
Is it an age thing , or is it a physical maturity thing ? I always frame the question like this : when I was a 14 and 15 year old boy , I certainly had sexual thoughts andfantasies about some 14 and 15 year old girls , many of whom were certainly capable of reproducing , and some of whom,along with my contemporary male colleagues , were certainly already * practicing " the act of coitus.Was I a pedophile ?
Was I pedophile still when I turned 16 ?
17 ? 18 ?
21 ? Did those 15 year old girls suddenlystop being sexually enticing ? Now at 45 , the attraction has certainly diminished , and I still do nothing atall if such attraction reoccurs , but some now 15 year old girls look hot , flirt like crazy , and fuck their 15 yearold boyfriends .
And because I do n't and never have fucked any 15 year olds , but still remember wanting to andtrying to when I was 15 , I 'm apparently a pervert and should be locked up or castrated.Times past , girls were getting married and pregnant at 15 as a common matter , and now they 're forbiddenfruit to even think about .
I tell you what 's gone wrong - humanity took a fear pill , liked it too much , and now hasan addiction to being scared - we just love it - it gives us an excuse to stop thinking , which always was too muchlike hard work anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, I have a really difficult time working this out.
Is it an age thing, or is it a physical maturity thing?I always frame the question like this: when I was a 14 and 15 year old boy, I certainly had sexual thoughts andfantasies about some 14 and 15 year old girls, many of whom were certainly capable of reproducing, and some of whom,along with my contemporary male colleagues, were certainly already *practicing" the act of coitus.Was I a pedophile?
Was I pedophile still when I turned 16?
17? 18?
21? Did those 15 year old girls suddenlystop being sexually enticing?Now at 45, the attraction has certainly diminished, and I still do nothing atall if such attraction reoccurs, but some now 15 year old girls look hot, flirt like crazy, and fuck their 15 yearold boyfriends.
And because I don't and never have fucked any 15 year olds, but still remember wanting to andtrying to when I was 15, I'm apparently a pervert and should be locked up or castrated.Times past, girls were getting married and pregnant at 15 as a common matter, and now they're forbiddenfruit to even think about.
I tell you what's gone wrong - humanity took a fear pill, liked it too much, and now hasan addiction to being scared - we just love it - it gives us an excuse to stop thinking, which always was too muchlike hard work anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263486</id>
	<title>Additional Information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259485920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To make this clear:</p><p>The coalition in Germany has changed, yet the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) which is the major part of the present coalition (CDU + FDP) also participated in the last coaltion (2005-2009) consisting of the SPD (German Social Democratic Party) and the CDU. The law was initiated by the CDU (without opposition from the SPD, to be true, but also without much enthusiasm) and they really did their best to have it passed.</p><p>The same people who initiated it are now trying to stop it - not because they suddenly came to their senses, but because they wanted it so bad they fucked it up. They still want it, they just have to make a better (more in line with the German constitution) attempt. If they don't stop it now, it is likely that it will fail in the court (Federal Constitutional Court), which will make it harder for a seccond attempt (and cause more negative publicity).</p><p>The Federal President is also ideologically associated to the CDU (although he is not allowed to be part any party), and he would be part of it, if he hadn't been elected as President. He won his election because of the support he got from the CDU. So he, too, didn't develop some common sense but is just helping his mates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To make this clear : The coalition in Germany has changed , yet the Christian Democratic Union ( CDU ) which is the major part of the present coalition ( CDU + FDP ) also participated in the last coaltion ( 2005-2009 ) consisting of the SPD ( German Social Democratic Party ) and the CDU .
The law was initiated by the CDU ( without opposition from the SPD , to be true , but also without much enthusiasm ) and they really did their best to have it passed.The same people who initiated it are now trying to stop it - not because they suddenly came to their senses , but because they wanted it so bad they fucked it up .
They still want it , they just have to make a better ( more in line with the German constitution ) attempt .
If they do n't stop it now , it is likely that it will fail in the court ( Federal Constitutional Court ) , which will make it harder for a seccond attempt ( and cause more negative publicity ) .The Federal President is also ideologically associated to the CDU ( although he is not allowed to be part any party ) , and he would be part of it , if he had n't been elected as President .
He won his election because of the support he got from the CDU .
So he , too , did n't develop some common sense but is just helping his mates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To make this clear:The coalition in Germany has changed, yet the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) which is the major part of the present coalition (CDU + FDP) also participated in the last coaltion (2005-2009) consisting of the SPD (German Social Democratic Party) and the CDU.
The law was initiated by the CDU (without opposition from the SPD, to be true, but also without much enthusiasm) and they really did their best to have it passed.The same people who initiated it are now trying to stop it - not because they suddenly came to their senses, but because they wanted it so bad they fucked it up.
They still want it, they just have to make a better (more in line with the German constitution) attempt.
If they don't stop it now, it is likely that it will fail in the court (Federal Constitutional Court), which will make it harder for a seccond attempt (and cause more negative publicity).The Federal President is also ideologically associated to the CDU (although he is not allowed to be part any party), and he would be part of it, if he hadn't been elected as President.
He won his election because of the support he got from the CDU.
So he, too, didn't develop some common sense but is just helping his mates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267768</id>
	<title>Also,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a law should be signed to block child pornography that passed Parlament earlier this year, am I right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a law should be signed to block child pornography that passed Parlament earlier this year , am I right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a law should be signed to block child pornography that passed Parlament earlier this year, am I right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30276242</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>Lunzo</author>
	<datestamp>1259581380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think the post was sarcastic. It was cynicism directed at the tabloid press and the sorts of articles they write. I couldn't see anything on Bild.de, but it wouldn't surprise me if tomorrow's headline was critical of the president not "thinking of the children".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the post was sarcastic .
It was cynicism directed at the tabloid press and the sorts of articles they write .
I could n't see anything on Bild.de , but it would n't surprise me if tomorrow 's headline was critical of the president not " thinking of the children " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the post was sarcastic.
It was cynicism directed at the tabloid press and the sorts of articles they write.
I couldn't see anything on Bild.de, but it wouldn't surprise me if tomorrow's headline was critical of the president not "thinking of the children".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265988</id>
	<title>Re:Sexual attraction to children is not uncommon</title>
	<author>mattsday</author>
	<datestamp>1259510880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tabloid crowd will almost always equate paedophilia (or homosexuality or whatever) with abuser/rapist.</p><p>I don't know if it is that, but that's what they'll always call you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tabloid crowd will almost always equate paedophilia ( or homosexuality or whatever ) with abuser/rapist.I do n't know if it is that , but that 's what they 'll always call you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tabloid crowd will almost always equate paedophilia (or homosexuality or whatever) with abuser/rapist.I don't know if it is that, but that's what they'll always call you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263416</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>mattventura</author>
	<datestamp>1259485380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure if this applies to Germany, but many non-US countries put less emphasis on individual short-term rights (gun ownership, free speech) and more on rights as a society (not being shot in a dark alley, protecting children.) Many people in the US view short-term rights as being better, but that is probably just cultural values.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if this applies to Germany , but many non-US countries put less emphasis on individual short-term rights ( gun ownership , free speech ) and more on rights as a society ( not being shot in a dark alley , protecting children .
) Many people in the US view short-term rights as being better , but that is probably just cultural values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if this applies to Germany, but many non-US countries put less emphasis on individual short-term rights (gun ownership, free speech) and more on rights as a society (not being shot in a dark alley, protecting children.
) Many people in the US view short-term rights as being better, but that is probably just cultural values.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263462</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1259485740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Free speech is valued in Germany but not as much as in the US. There are four reasons I'd suggest: One the US has the First Amendment which enshrined free speech pretty strongly. The fact that it was labeled first in the Bill of Rights probably had some suggestive effect. Although I've never seen any evidence that there was any intention to label the amendments by importance it still has a strong suggestive impact. Values might be different if the order was permuted. Second, the rise of the Nazi party and the post-war response to Nazism gives more of a feeling that some speech is genuinely dangerous and simply needs to be halted. The pre-Nazi Germany had very far ranging free speech and it is seen as this being part of the problem that lead to the Nazi reign. Third, there's much more value on privacy in many ways. The emphasis on privacy which frequently runs into free speech issues make free speech seem less important by comparison. Fourth, in general there's an attitude allowing more direct government intervention in many affairs which leads to again less of a problem with seeing speech being regulated. In the US, there's across the board some much heavier libertarian attitudes than in Germany or most of Europe. That libertarianism leads to more concern here about speech control. There are probably other reasons but those are simply off the top of my head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free speech is valued in Germany but not as much as in the US .
There are four reasons I 'd suggest : One the US has the First Amendment which enshrined free speech pretty strongly .
The fact that it was labeled first in the Bill of Rights probably had some suggestive effect .
Although I 've never seen any evidence that there was any intention to label the amendments by importance it still has a strong suggestive impact .
Values might be different if the order was permuted .
Second , the rise of the Nazi party and the post-war response to Nazism gives more of a feeling that some speech is genuinely dangerous and simply needs to be halted .
The pre-Nazi Germany had very far ranging free speech and it is seen as this being part of the problem that lead to the Nazi reign .
Third , there 's much more value on privacy in many ways .
The emphasis on privacy which frequently runs into free speech issues make free speech seem less important by comparison .
Fourth , in general there 's an attitude allowing more direct government intervention in many affairs which leads to again less of a problem with seeing speech being regulated .
In the US , there 's across the board some much heavier libertarian attitudes than in Germany or most of Europe .
That libertarianism leads to more concern here about speech control .
There are probably other reasons but those are simply off the top of my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free speech is valued in Germany but not as much as in the US.
There are four reasons I'd suggest: One the US has the First Amendment which enshrined free speech pretty strongly.
The fact that it was labeled first in the Bill of Rights probably had some suggestive effect.
Although I've never seen any evidence that there was any intention to label the amendments by importance it still has a strong suggestive impact.
Values might be different if the order was permuted.
Second, the rise of the Nazi party and the post-war response to Nazism gives more of a feeling that some speech is genuinely dangerous and simply needs to be halted.
The pre-Nazi Germany had very far ranging free speech and it is seen as this being part of the problem that lead to the Nazi reign.
Third, there's much more value on privacy in many ways.
The emphasis on privacy which frequently runs into free speech issues make free speech seem less important by comparison.
Fourth, in general there's an attitude allowing more direct government intervention in many affairs which leads to again less of a problem with seeing speech being regulated.
In the US, there's across the board some much heavier libertarian attitudes than in Germany or most of Europe.
That libertarianism leads to more concern here about speech control.
There are probably other reasons but those are simply off the top of my head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30270230</id>
	<title>Re:Looks like he is a paedophile criminal now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/An\_insight\_into\_child\_porn" title="wikileaks.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/An\_insight\_into\_child\_porn</a> [wikileaks.com]</p><p>AC for very obvious reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.wikileaks.com/wiki/An \ _insight \ _into \ _child \ _porn [ wikileaks.com ] AC for very obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/An\_insight\_into\_child\_porn [wikileaks.com]AC for very obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265720</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1259509260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the United States does NOT directly elect the President.  The state legislatures elect electors who go to Washington, and they cast votes there.  The states are free to choose any method they wish for picking the electors.  Most states do a winner-take-all system, and the person who has the most votes from the people gets all of that state's electoral votes.  The US Constitution is agnostic to the existence of political parties.  They're not a requirement for the election process.  The First Amendment would probably make outlawing them illegal, but our first president wasn't a member of any political party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the United States does NOT directly elect the President .
The state legislatures elect electors who go to Washington , and they cast votes there .
The states are free to choose any method they wish for picking the electors .
Most states do a winner-take-all system , and the person who has the most votes from the people gets all of that state 's electoral votes .
The US Constitution is agnostic to the existence of political parties .
They 're not a requirement for the election process .
The First Amendment would probably make outlawing them illegal , but our first president was n't a member of any political party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the United States does NOT directly elect the President.
The state legislatures elect electors who go to Washington, and they cast votes there.
The states are free to choose any method they wish for picking the electors.
Most states do a winner-take-all system, and the person who has the most votes from the people gets all of that state's electoral votes.
The US Constitution is agnostic to the existence of political parties.
They're not a requirement for the election process.
The First Amendment would probably make outlawing them illegal, but our first president wasn't a member of any political party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265958</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1259510760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory the constitution should be enough.</p><p>But has history has consistently revealed, all the writing in the world don't mean diddly-squat if someone ever becomes powerful enough to ignore it with impunity.</p><p>Which is why the US constitution has checks and balances in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory the constitution should be enough.But has history has consistently revealed , all the writing in the world do n't mean diddly-squat if someone ever becomes powerful enough to ignore it with impunity.Which is why the US constitution has checks and balances in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory the constitution should be enough.But has history has consistently revealed, all the writing in the world don't mean diddly-squat if someone ever becomes powerful enough to ignore it with impunity.Which is why the US constitution has checks and balances in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264176</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259493480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The free speech is actually one of the highest valued rights in the German constitution. You are allowed to say everything you think, excluding the denial of the holocaust in WW2. Even more, free speech in Germany is one of the freest in the world! I don't see a problem in not empowering a single person with veto rights. The parliament decides, not the president. There is no single point of failure.</p><p>This law is hardly under attack in Germany, because it would give the BKA (some kind of the German FBI) the power to censor any website they want to. It would not be possible to get the list of disallowed websites and would lift off the 3-parted(parliament, courts, police) German legal system. Furthermore, the people don't just  want to have a DNS blocking system ( --- you can still access the websites per IP!) but want the content to be deleted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The free speech is actually one of the highest valued rights in the German constitution .
You are allowed to say everything you think , excluding the denial of the holocaust in WW2 .
Even more , free speech in Germany is one of the freest in the world !
I do n't see a problem in not empowering a single person with veto rights .
The parliament decides , not the president .
There is no single point of failure.This law is hardly under attack in Germany , because it would give the BKA ( some kind of the German FBI ) the power to censor any website they want to .
It would not be possible to get the list of disallowed websites and would lift off the 3-parted ( parliament , courts , police ) German legal system .
Furthermore , the people do n't just want to have a DNS blocking system ( --- you can still access the websites per IP !
) but want the content to be deleted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The free speech is actually one of the highest valued rights in the German constitution.
You are allowed to say everything you think, excluding the denial of the holocaust in WW2.
Even more, free speech in Germany is one of the freest in the world!
I don't see a problem in not empowering a single person with veto rights.
The parliament decides, not the president.
There is no single point of failure.This law is hardly under attack in Germany, because it would give the BKA (some kind of the German FBI) the power to censor any website they want to.
It would not be possible to get the list of disallowed websites and would lift off the 3-parted(parliament, courts, police) German legal system.
Furthermore, the people don't just  want to have a DNS blocking system ( --- you can still access the websites per IP!
) but want the content to be deleted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264736</id>
	<title>Re:Looks like he is a paedophile criminal now...</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1259498400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that law anything like the one in Canada coming where isps become cops and all this surveillance goes about broadly to catch maybe one person every 10 years</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that law anything like the one in Canada coming where isps become cops and all this surveillance goes about broadly to catch maybe one person every 10 years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that law anything like the one in Canada coming where isps become cops and all this surveillance goes about broadly to catch maybe one person every 10 years</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263490</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>Reemi</author>
	<datestamp>1259486040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we talking about the same topic?</p><p>From the article:<br>---<br>The law, which critics argue would block access to other, innocent sites and therefore amounted to censorship, could breach Germany's constitution, experts believe.<br>---</p><p>Shame on those who modded you up. Accusing somebody of supporting child pornography is really low. Furthermore, this is Germany you're talking about and the President is NOT able to make laws.</p><p>Just remember, what we saw here is a president doing his task PROTECTING the people from parliament passing unconstitutional laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we talking about the same topic ? From the article : ---The law , which critics argue would block access to other , innocent sites and therefore amounted to censorship , could breach Germany 's constitution , experts believe.---Shame on those who modded you up .
Accusing somebody of supporting child pornography is really low .
Furthermore , this is Germany you 're talking about and the President is NOT able to make laws.Just remember , what we saw here is a president doing his task PROTECTING the people from parliament passing unconstitutional laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we talking about the same topic?From the article:---The law, which critics argue would block access to other, innocent sites and therefore amounted to censorship, could breach Germany's constitution, experts believe.---Shame on those who modded you up.
Accusing somebody of supporting child pornography is really low.
Furthermore, this is Germany you're talking about and the President is NOT able to make laws.Just remember, what we saw here is a president doing his task PROTECTING the people from parliament passing unconstitutional laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264712</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1259498040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know it could have been "free speech zones" at DEMOCRAT gatherings too:</p><p><a href="http://camelsnose.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/what-a-denver-democratic-convention-free-speech-zone-looks-like/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://camelsnose.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/what-a-denver-democratic-convention-free-speech-zone-looks-like/</a> [wordpress.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know it could have been " free speech zones " at DEMOCRAT gatherings too : http : //camelsnose.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/what-a-denver-democratic-convention-free-speech-zone-looks-like/ [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know it could have been "free speech zones" at DEMOCRAT gatherings too:http://camelsnose.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/what-a-denver-democratic-convention-free-speech-zone-looks-like/ [wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263694</id>
	<title>Re:Censorship?</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1259488740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First of all I wonder why you always use the term "censorship" if it is clearly not appropriated?<br>
The law is about blocking a web site, that was found distributing child porn.</p></div><p>
Not quite. The law is about establishing a nationwide site-blocking infrastructure at ISPs. Which sites are to be<br>
blocked is supposed be decided by the BKA (federal police - roughly comparable to the FBI) <i>without</i> involvement<br>
of a judge or any further oversight, and of course the blocking list is to be kept secret, because it could be misused<br>
as a "shopping list" by evildoers.<br>
<br>
Additionally, the first version of the law had a logging provision, where the detection of somebody <i>trying</i> to access<br>
one of those blocked sites would be probable cause for investigating the person for certain crimes. I believe this was dropped,<br>
but you get the idea...<br>
<br>
This law is about much, much more than just child porn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all I wonder why you always use the term " censorship " if it is clearly not appropriated ?
The law is about blocking a web site , that was found distributing child porn .
Not quite .
The law is about establishing a nationwide site-blocking infrastructure at ISPs .
Which sites are to be blocked is supposed be decided by the BKA ( federal police - roughly comparable to the FBI ) without involvement of a judge or any further oversight , and of course the blocking list is to be kept secret , because it could be misused as a " shopping list " by evildoers .
Additionally , the first version of the law had a logging provision , where the detection of somebody trying to access one of those blocked sites would be probable cause for investigating the person for certain crimes .
I believe this was dropped , but you get the idea.. . This law is about much , much more than just child porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all I wonder why you always use the term "censorship" if it is clearly not appropriated?
The law is about blocking a web site, that was found distributing child porn.
Not quite.
The law is about establishing a nationwide site-blocking infrastructure at ISPs.
Which sites are to be
blocked is supposed be decided by the BKA (federal police - roughly comparable to the FBI) without involvement
of a judge or any further oversight, and of course the blocking list is to be kept secret, because it could be misused
as a "shopping list" by evildoers.
Additionally, the first version of the law had a logging provision, where the detection of somebody trying to access
one of those blocked sites would be probable cause for investigating the person for certain crimes.
I believe this was dropped,
but you get the idea...

This law is about much, much more than just child porn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263588</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1259487360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The idea that the president can't veto a law, and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Unlike France and the US, Germany doesn't have a presidential democracy. Moreover, the German President is not directly elected by the people but by a group of electors called "Bundesversammlung", which itself (unlike the electors in the US) is NOT elected by the people, but nominated by parties in the Parliament (Bundestag).

So, the German President's legitimacy is weaker than that of a French or US president which is elected much more directly by the people. Think of the German President's role as a kind of emergency fallback, in case the Government was disabled... or goes crazy (it's all clearly defined in the German Basic Law).

The reason for this strange setup is historical: those who drafted the German Basic Law were still under the impression of the disaster that an almighty Fuehrer (Hitler) can cause, and wanted to curb Government's power a little bit, without giving too much power to the President either. Furthermore, they were also deeply distrustful of the People (who voted NSDAP a decade and a half ago, let's not forget that), so they added a level of indirection in the election of the President. Take all this together, and you can understand German Basic Law a little better. It's still strange, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that the president ca n't veto a law , and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little .
Unlike France and the US , Germany does n't have a presidential democracy .
Moreover , the German President is not directly elected by the people but by a group of electors called " Bundesversammlung " , which itself ( unlike the electors in the US ) is NOT elected by the people , but nominated by parties in the Parliament ( Bundestag ) .
So , the German President 's legitimacy is weaker than that of a French or US president which is elected much more directly by the people .
Think of the German President 's role as a kind of emergency fallback , in case the Government was disabled... or goes crazy ( it 's all clearly defined in the German Basic Law ) .
The reason for this strange setup is historical : those who drafted the German Basic Law were still under the impression of the disaster that an almighty Fuehrer ( Hitler ) can cause , and wanted to curb Government 's power a little bit , without giving too much power to the President either .
Furthermore , they were also deeply distrustful of the People ( who voted NSDAP a decade and a half ago , let 's not forget that ) , so they added a level of indirection in the election of the President .
Take all this together , and you can understand German Basic Law a little better .
It 's still strange , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that the president can't veto a law, and that the only checks against parliamentary power are the constitution itself kind of bugs me a little.
Unlike France and the US, Germany doesn't have a presidential democracy.
Moreover, the German President is not directly elected by the people but by a group of electors called "Bundesversammlung", which itself (unlike the electors in the US) is NOT elected by the people, but nominated by parties in the Parliament (Bundestag).
So, the German President's legitimacy is weaker than that of a French or US president which is elected much more directly by the people.
Think of the German President's role as a kind of emergency fallback, in case the Government was disabled... or goes crazy (it's all clearly defined in the German Basic Law).
The reason for this strange setup is historical: those who drafted the German Basic Law were still under the impression of the disaster that an almighty Fuehrer (Hitler) can cause, and wanted to curb Government's power a little bit, without giving too much power to the President either.
Furthermore, they were also deeply distrustful of the People (who voted NSDAP a decade and a half ago, let's not forget that), so they added a level of indirection in the election of the President.
Take all this together, and you can understand German Basic Law a little better.
It's still strange, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263648</id>
	<title>Adolf Hitler agrees!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259488080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.  -- Mein Kampf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people .
As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children , the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation .
-- Mein Kampf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people.
As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.
-- Mein Kampf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265592</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1259508240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The First Amendment was just the first one to be ratified by the states.  I believe in the list that was submitted, it contained twelve proposed amendments.  Ten are the ones we know today, one was recently ratified back in the 90's about Congressional pay raises.  I believe the current second amendment was actually the first in that list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The First Amendment was just the first one to be ratified by the states .
I believe in the list that was submitted , it contained twelve proposed amendments .
Ten are the ones we know today , one was recently ratified back in the 90 's about Congressional pay raises .
I believe the current second amendment was actually the first in that list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The First Amendment was just the first one to be ratified by the states.
I believe in the list that was submitted, it contained twelve proposed amendments.
Ten are the ones we know today, one was recently ratified back in the 90's about Congressional pay raises.
I believe the current second amendment was actually the first in that list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265438</id>
	<title>Re:Matter of framing</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1259506560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The goal isn't just to outlaw Nazi symbols and the like - in fact, they aren't outlawed in all contexts - but to outlaw neo-Nazi activity. Organizations can be, and are, shut down if it can be demonstrated that they hold Nazi sympathies, even if they use none of the symbolism or other direct references.</p><p>Whether it's right to do so is an interesting question. I would oppose a law to outlaw neo-Nazi activity here in the US, but I can appreciate that such a law might be considered necessary in Germany. If I was a German citizen, I might be more opinionated (one way or the other) on the matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal is n't just to outlaw Nazi symbols and the like - in fact , they are n't outlawed in all contexts - but to outlaw neo-Nazi activity .
Organizations can be , and are , shut down if it can be demonstrated that they hold Nazi sympathies , even if they use none of the symbolism or other direct references.Whether it 's right to do so is an interesting question .
I would oppose a law to outlaw neo-Nazi activity here in the US , but I can appreciate that such a law might be considered necessary in Germany .
If I was a German citizen , I might be more opinionated ( one way or the other ) on the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal isn't just to outlaw Nazi symbols and the like - in fact, they aren't outlawed in all contexts - but to outlaw neo-Nazi activity.
Organizations can be, and are, shut down if it can be demonstrated that they hold Nazi sympathies, even if they use none of the symbolism or other direct references.Whether it's right to do so is an interesting question.
I would oppose a law to outlaw neo-Nazi activity here in the US, but I can appreciate that such a law might be considered necessary in Germany.
If I was a German citizen, I might be more opinionated (one way or the other) on the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265714</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259509140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"This is actually quite common in many places"</i>
<br> <br>
Indeed, it's called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster\_system" title="wikipedia.org">Westminster system</a> [wikipedia.org]. That and the French system are to a large extent the roots of modern democracy.
<br> <br>
One minor clarrification to your post is that you don't vote for a party, it only seems that way because the parties hand out "how to vote" leaflets and most people simply copy thier favorite party's recommendations.
<br> <br>
Also the official head of state is the govenor general not the PM (at least here in Oz), the GG is a proxy for the Queen. The only real power they have is they can sack the government and call an election if the government of the day cannot resolve a double dissolution. This solves the situation where a budget cannot be passed (re: california).</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is actually quite common in many places " Indeed , it 's called the Westminster system [ wikipedia.org ] .
That and the French system are to a large extent the roots of modern democracy .
One minor clarrification to your post is that you do n't vote for a party , it only seems that way because the parties hand out " how to vote " leaflets and most people simply copy thier favorite party 's recommendations .
Also the official head of state is the govenor general not the PM ( at least here in Oz ) , the GG is a proxy for the Queen .
The only real power they have is they can sack the government and call an election if the government of the day can not resolve a double dissolution .
This solves the situation where a budget can not be passed ( re : california ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is actually quite common in many places"
 
Indeed, it's called the Westminster system [wikipedia.org].
That and the French system are to a large extent the roots of modern democracy.
One minor clarrification to your post is that you don't vote for a party, it only seems that way because the parties hand out "how to vote" leaflets and most people simply copy thier favorite party's recommendations.
Also the official head of state is the govenor general not the PM (at least here in Oz), the GG is a proxy for the Queen.
The only real power they have is they can sack the government and call an election if the government of the day cannot resolve a double dissolution.
This solves the situation where a budget cannot be passed (re: california).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336</id>
	<title>Looks like he is a paedophile criminal now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259528040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... or at least according to the former family affairs minister - she said that everyone who is against this law is either a paedophile criminal or their lobby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... or at least according to the former family affairs minister - she said that everyone who is against this law is either a paedophile criminal or their lobby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or at least according to the former family affairs minister - she said that everyone who is against this law is either a paedophile criminal or their lobby.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263536</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>dmartin</author>
	<datestamp>1259486520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about Germany, but in New Zealand we have a very similar way of voting in our members of Parliament so I will take a stab at why you would not want your president to be able to veto a law thing.</p><p>Unlike the US, we do not directly elect our head of state (I presume this is also true for Germany as well). Instead we vote for the party that we want to be in power, based on their policies and the party appoints a PM. This is actually quite common in many places, and it means that the Prime Minister can change inside a term. e.g. The United Kingdom had a PM change from Blair to Brown without an election. In the US if the president was to resign, the VP would become the president, it cannot be reassigned based on party politics. In practice the choice for PM is announced before the election, so many people do vote based on who they want their prime minister to be.</p><p>[The US is even stranger here, as you get the right to vote for your sentators, representatives and your electoral college member, but that is a whole different digression.]</p><p>The prime minister does have a fair amount of power, and does a bunch of figure head stuff (negotiate treaties, etc). But as it is not an elected position, the PM has fairly limited legislative power. The idea of one person vetoing a law that the other democratically elected MPs voted for would not be accepted, the PM already has a fair amount of unofficial power in the form of increased media time, and influence over the majority collation at the time. The fact that Germany has a system where the PM can overrule a law that violates the constitution is, in my opinion, a good thing.</p><p>[The closest NZ has to this is the governer general -- as a member of the commonwealth our official head of state is the Queen of the Commonwealth. She appoints the GG who then approves laws in her place. The GG could, in principle, turn down any law for any reason but that would quickly turn public opinion against being part of the commonwealth and would probably make NZ reconsider its position within the commonwealth.]</p><p>In contrast, ignoring the issue of the congressional college, the US populace votes directly for the position of president on the understanding that this one position will have a lot of legislative power in the form of vetos. Whether that is too much of a concentration of power for a single individual is up to you to decide, but at least it is an elected position. Ignoring our governor general (who theoretically has a lot of power, but would lose it is she ever tried to yield it) our system does not have as much power with a single person, and our elections for (psuedo-)head of state tend to be much more civil that the USA counterparts.</p><p>Hope this helped explain the origins / reasons for the differences!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about Germany , but in New Zealand we have a very similar way of voting in our members of Parliament so I will take a stab at why you would not want your president to be able to veto a law thing.Unlike the US , we do not directly elect our head of state ( I presume this is also true for Germany as well ) .
Instead we vote for the party that we want to be in power , based on their policies and the party appoints a PM .
This is actually quite common in many places , and it means that the Prime Minister can change inside a term .
e.g. The United Kingdom had a PM change from Blair to Brown without an election .
In the US if the president was to resign , the VP would become the president , it can not be reassigned based on party politics .
In practice the choice for PM is announced before the election , so many people do vote based on who they want their prime minister to be .
[ The US is even stranger here , as you get the right to vote for your sentators , representatives and your electoral college member , but that is a whole different digression .
] The prime minister does have a fair amount of power , and does a bunch of figure head stuff ( negotiate treaties , etc ) .
But as it is not an elected position , the PM has fairly limited legislative power .
The idea of one person vetoing a law that the other democratically elected MPs voted for would not be accepted , the PM already has a fair amount of unofficial power in the form of increased media time , and influence over the majority collation at the time .
The fact that Germany has a system where the PM can overrule a law that violates the constitution is , in my opinion , a good thing .
[ The closest NZ has to this is the governer general -- as a member of the commonwealth our official head of state is the Queen of the Commonwealth .
She appoints the GG who then approves laws in her place .
The GG could , in principle , turn down any law for any reason but that would quickly turn public opinion against being part of the commonwealth and would probably make NZ reconsider its position within the commonwealth .
] In contrast , ignoring the issue of the congressional college , the US populace votes directly for the position of president on the understanding that this one position will have a lot of legislative power in the form of vetos .
Whether that is too much of a concentration of power for a single individual is up to you to decide , but at least it is an elected position .
Ignoring our governor general ( who theoretically has a lot of power , but would lose it is she ever tried to yield it ) our system does not have as much power with a single person , and our elections for ( psuedo- ) head of state tend to be much more civil that the USA counterparts.Hope this helped explain the origins / reasons for the differences !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about Germany, but in New Zealand we have a very similar way of voting in our members of Parliament so I will take a stab at why you would not want your president to be able to veto a law thing.Unlike the US, we do not directly elect our head of state (I presume this is also true for Germany as well).
Instead we vote for the party that we want to be in power, based on their policies and the party appoints a PM.
This is actually quite common in many places, and it means that the Prime Minister can change inside a term.
e.g. The United Kingdom had a PM change from Blair to Brown without an election.
In the US if the president was to resign, the VP would become the president, it cannot be reassigned based on party politics.
In practice the choice for PM is announced before the election, so many people do vote based on who they want their prime minister to be.
[The US is even stranger here, as you get the right to vote for your sentators, representatives and your electoral college member, but that is a whole different digression.
]The prime minister does have a fair amount of power, and does a bunch of figure head stuff (negotiate treaties, etc).
But as it is not an elected position, the PM has fairly limited legislative power.
The idea of one person vetoing a law that the other democratically elected MPs voted for would not be accepted, the PM already has a fair amount of unofficial power in the form of increased media time, and influence over the majority collation at the time.
The fact that Germany has a system where the PM can overrule a law that violates the constitution is, in my opinion, a good thing.
[The closest NZ has to this is the governer general -- as a member of the commonwealth our official head of state is the Queen of the Commonwealth.
She appoints the GG who then approves laws in her place.
The GG could, in principle, turn down any law for any reason but that would quickly turn public opinion against being part of the commonwealth and would probably make NZ reconsider its position within the commonwealth.
]In contrast, ignoring the issue of the congressional college, the US populace votes directly for the position of president on the understanding that this one position will have a lot of legislative power in the form of vetos.
Whether that is too much of a concentration of power for a single individual is up to you to decide, but at least it is an elected position.
Ignoring our governor general (who theoretically has a lot of power, but would lose it is she ever tried to yield it) our system does not have as much power with a single person, and our elections for (psuedo-)head of state tend to be much more civil that the USA counterparts.Hope this helped explain the origins / reasons for the differences!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264838</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259499240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you got enough answers concerning how the role of the German president (as a head of state and not member of the government) is completely different then what you might think.</p><p>Let me just add concerning this statement:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What I'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are, and if anyone knows -WHY- they exist. Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general (Germany in particular) does not?</p></div><p>I honestly do think that freedom of speech has a high value in Germany. The German constitution and the German society (in my opinion) values human dignity ("Human dignity is untouchable" is - for well known reasons - the first paragraph of the German constitution), freedom of speech and human rights.</p><p>I assume part of your reason to believe that free speech is not valued in Germany is due to the well known restrictions eg when it comes to show Nazi symbols for the sake of Nazi propaganda. The point is: Germany has made the experience how a democratic society (the Weimar Republic) has been ripped apart by radical groups which were openly anti-democratic, and which took advantage of the economical and political turmoil of that time. The basic logic behind the German system established after WWII is: a free and democratic society has to be able to defend itself against those who strive to abolish that freedoms. This is why the German systems allows legal pressure against groups which openly are anti-democratic, anti-human rights (like right wing neo-Nazi movements). I'm completely aware that there is a "logical limbo" in defending values like freedom of speech and human rights against fascist groups by restricting freedom of speech for people close to these groups. It might be debatable, but it is definitely not a sign that these things are not "valued".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you got enough answers concerning how the role of the German president ( as a head of state and not member of the government ) is completely different then what you might think.Let me just add concerning this statement : What I 'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are , and if anyone knows -WHY- they exist .
Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general ( Germany in particular ) does not ? I honestly do think that freedom of speech has a high value in Germany .
The German constitution and the German society ( in my opinion ) values human dignity ( " Human dignity is untouchable " is - for well known reasons - the first paragraph of the German constitution ) , freedom of speech and human rights.I assume part of your reason to believe that free speech is not valued in Germany is due to the well known restrictions eg when it comes to show Nazi symbols for the sake of Nazi propaganda .
The point is : Germany has made the experience how a democratic society ( the Weimar Republic ) has been ripped apart by radical groups which were openly anti-democratic , and which took advantage of the economical and political turmoil of that time .
The basic logic behind the German system established after WWII is : a free and democratic society has to be able to defend itself against those who strive to abolish that freedoms .
This is why the German systems allows legal pressure against groups which openly are anti-democratic , anti-human rights ( like right wing neo-Nazi movements ) .
I 'm completely aware that there is a " logical limbo " in defending values like freedom of speech and human rights against fascist groups by restricting freedom of speech for people close to these groups .
It might be debatable , but it is definitely not a sign that these things are not " valued " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you got enough answers concerning how the role of the German president (as a head of state and not member of the government) is completely different then what you might think.Let me just add concerning this statement:What I'd honestly like to understand is what the cultural differences are, and if anyone knows -WHY- they exist.
Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech at least theoretically whereas Europe in general (Germany in particular) does not?I honestly do think that freedom of speech has a high value in Germany.
The German constitution and the German society (in my opinion) values human dignity ("Human dignity is untouchable" is - for well known reasons - the first paragraph of the German constitution), freedom of speech and human rights.I assume part of your reason to believe that free speech is not valued in Germany is due to the well known restrictions eg when it comes to show Nazi symbols for the sake of Nazi propaganda.
The point is: Germany has made the experience how a democratic society (the Weimar Republic) has been ripped apart by radical groups which were openly anti-democratic, and which took advantage of the economical and political turmoil of that time.
The basic logic behind the German system established after WWII is: a free and democratic society has to be able to defend itself against those who strive to abolish that freedoms.
This is why the German systems allows legal pressure against groups which openly are anti-democratic, anti-human rights (like right wing neo-Nazi movements).
I'm completely aware that there is a "logical limbo" in defending values like freedom of speech and human rights against fascist groups by restricting freedom of speech for people close to these groups.
It might be debatable, but it is definitely not a sign that these things are not "valued".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268528</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1259582160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Queen can still veto laws. At least until tomorrow, when the Lisbon Treaty diverts her (mostly ceremonial) rolls to the EU. She's essentially a relic and good for some pomp, nowadays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Queen can still veto laws .
At least until tomorrow , when the Lisbon Treaty diverts her ( mostly ceremonial ) rolls to the EU .
She 's essentially a relic and good for some pomp , nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Queen can still veto laws.
At least until tomorrow, when the Lisbon Treaty diverts her (mostly ceremonial) rolls to the EU.
She's essentially a relic and good for some pomp, nowadays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263572</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259487060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>To understand why the president is such a weak position in Germany, think of it as a constitutional monarchy. Back in 1918 (that's less than 100 years ago, basically yesterday in terms of history) Germany was a monarchy. Then, when the riots broke out, the guys who would found the Weimar Republic intended to go for a constitutional monarchy, with a weak Kaiser who's just a head of state without any actual powers. But things got out of hand, one thing led to another and suddenly the Kaiser was exiled and they had to do without him. So they created the position of president, more or less a Kaiser, just elected. He had some reverse powers and that's it.

But in the Weimar Republic political chaos was the very common and so the reverse powers were used on a daily basis. After the war when the new constitution was written this was identified as one of the factors that caused the previous republic to fail and so they decided that the president should have even less reverse powers. And that's how we got here.


Also, the Constitutional Court is a <i>very</i> good check against parliamentary power. The judges there tend to have the most common sense of all courts and because they need a 2/3 majority to get elected there, party politics tend to be kept out of the process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To understand why the president is such a weak position in Germany , think of it as a constitutional monarchy .
Back in 1918 ( that 's less than 100 years ago , basically yesterday in terms of history ) Germany was a monarchy .
Then , when the riots broke out , the guys who would found the Weimar Republic intended to go for a constitutional monarchy , with a weak Kaiser who 's just a head of state without any actual powers .
But things got out of hand , one thing led to another and suddenly the Kaiser was exiled and they had to do without him .
So they created the position of president , more or less a Kaiser , just elected .
He had some reverse powers and that 's it .
But in the Weimar Republic political chaos was the very common and so the reverse powers were used on a daily basis .
After the war when the new constitution was written this was identified as one of the factors that caused the previous republic to fail and so they decided that the president should have even less reverse powers .
And that 's how we got here .
Also , the Constitutional Court is a very good check against parliamentary power .
The judges there tend to have the most common sense of all courts and because they need a 2/3 majority to get elected there , party politics tend to be kept out of the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To understand why the president is such a weak position in Germany, think of it as a constitutional monarchy.
Back in 1918 (that's less than 100 years ago, basically yesterday in terms of history) Germany was a monarchy.
Then, when the riots broke out, the guys who would found the Weimar Republic intended to go for a constitutional monarchy, with a weak Kaiser who's just a head of state without any actual powers.
But things got out of hand, one thing led to another and suddenly the Kaiser was exiled and they had to do without him.
So they created the position of president, more or less a Kaiser, just elected.
He had some reverse powers and that's it.
But in the Weimar Republic political chaos was the very common and so the reverse powers were used on a daily basis.
After the war when the new constitution was written this was identified as one of the factors that caused the previous republic to fail and so they decided that the president should have even less reverse powers.
And that's how we got here.
Also, the Constitutional Court is a very good check against parliamentary power.
The judges there tend to have the most common sense of all courts and because they need a 2/3 majority to get elected there, party politics tend to be kept out of the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263512</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Alinabi</author>
	<datestamp>1259486340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech</p></div><p>What makes you say that? Is it the "free speech zones" at the Republicrat national conventions or Lenny Bruce's multiple arrests for saying "four letter words" on stage?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speechWhat makes you say that ?
Is it the " free speech zones " at the Republicrat national conventions or Lenny Bruce 's multiple arrests for saying " four letter words " on stage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speechWhat makes you say that?
Is it the "free speech zones" at the Republicrat national conventions or Lenny Bruce's multiple arrests for saying "four letter words" on stage?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264024</id>
	<title>Children who takes photo of themselves? hello</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259491980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He is in the right. We are criminally charging children now who takes photo of them selves and parents who have photo of washing their babies. Etc. Loss of freedom human were born naked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is in the right .
We are criminally charging children now who takes photo of them selves and parents who have photo of washing their babies .
Etc. Loss of freedom human were born naked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is in the right.
We are criminally charging children now who takes photo of them selves and parents who have photo of washing their babies.
Etc. Loss of freedom human were born naked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263788</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1259489760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should the president be allowed to veto a law, really? Does this make bad laws harder to pass? Maybe, but then it makes necessary laws harder to pass as well. And bad laws harder to repel or fix (the two layers of veto in the US, first senate, then executive, means farm subsidies and gerrymandering, to name a few, won't be going anywhere for you...)<br><br>It seems to me (take same caveat as in your first paragraph) that over-vetoing is a big problem for the US. Important issues are decided by duelling lawyers, because the legislative branch is not responsive enough to prove explicit guidance (telling the courts how they really want to be interpreted).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the president be allowed to veto a law , really ?
Does this make bad laws harder to pass ?
Maybe , but then it makes necessary laws harder to pass as well .
And bad laws harder to repel or fix ( the two layers of veto in the US , first senate , then executive , means farm subsidies and gerrymandering , to name a few , wo n't be going anywhere for you... ) It seems to me ( take same caveat as in your first paragraph ) that over-vetoing is a big problem for the US .
Important issues are decided by duelling lawyers , because the legislative branch is not responsive enough to prove explicit guidance ( telling the courts how they really want to be interpreted ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should the president be allowed to veto a law, really?
Does this make bad laws harder to pass?
Maybe, but then it makes necessary laws harder to pass as well.
And bad laws harder to repel or fix (the two layers of veto in the US, first senate, then executive, means farm subsidies and gerrymandering, to name a few, won't be going anywhere for you...)It seems to me (take same caveat as in your first paragraph) that over-vetoing is a big problem for the US.
Important issues are decided by duelling lawyers, because the legislative branch is not responsive enough to prove explicit guidance (telling the courts how they really want to be interpreted).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266358</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1259514060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Unlike the US, we do not directly elect our head of state (I presume this is also true for Germany as well).</i> <br> <br>Greetings from an American who has relocated to NZ within the past couple months.  The US does not directly elect their leader either.  Most of the leaders in the past 20 years did not have a majority of popular votes, and a number of them lost in popular votes to other choices.  We do vote for people who are then suppposed to vote for the person that they say they will before we vote for them, but there are no real consequences if they don't (in some places, the vote will stand but they can be brought up on what is essentially fraud charges, and in most places, there are absolutely no legal consequences).  It's happened before, but never to change the outcome of the election, so most people discount it.<br> <br>So, there is a vote for the President.  But the vote is to determine how your state votes, not a direct vote for any candidate.<br> <br>I'll be registered to vote in another 9 months or so, so I get to learn how it's done in NZ.<br> <br>In the US, the Speaker of the House has a lot of power and is selected by the party in charge.  This seems more like the systems other countries have, but with the Speaker being more like the US president.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike the US , we do not directly elect our head of state ( I presume this is also true for Germany as well ) .
Greetings from an American who has relocated to NZ within the past couple months .
The US does not directly elect their leader either .
Most of the leaders in the past 20 years did not have a majority of popular votes , and a number of them lost in popular votes to other choices .
We do vote for people who are then suppposed to vote for the person that they say they will before we vote for them , but there are no real consequences if they do n't ( in some places , the vote will stand but they can be brought up on what is essentially fraud charges , and in most places , there are absolutely no legal consequences ) .
It 's happened before , but never to change the outcome of the election , so most people discount it .
So , there is a vote for the President .
But the vote is to determine how your state votes , not a direct vote for any candidate .
I 'll be registered to vote in another 9 months or so , so I get to learn how it 's done in NZ .
In the US , the Speaker of the House has a lot of power and is selected by the party in charge .
This seems more like the systems other countries have , but with the Speaker being more like the US president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike the US, we do not directly elect our head of state (I presume this is also true for Germany as well).
Greetings from an American who has relocated to NZ within the past couple months.
The US does not directly elect their leader either.
Most of the leaders in the past 20 years did not have a majority of popular votes, and a number of them lost in popular votes to other choices.
We do vote for people who are then suppposed to vote for the person that they say they will before we vote for them, but there are no real consequences if they don't (in some places, the vote will stand but they can be brought up on what is essentially fraud charges, and in most places, there are absolutely no legal consequences).
It's happened before, but never to change the outcome of the election, so most people discount it.
So, there is a vote for the President.
But the vote is to determine how your state votes, not a direct vote for any candidate.
I'll be registered to vote in another 9 months or so, so I get to learn how it's done in NZ.
In the US, the Speaker of the House has a lot of power and is selected by the party in charge.
This seems more like the systems other countries have, but with the Speaker being more like the US president.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265382</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1259505780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Either that OR he wants to make sure that the censorship<br>&gt; law is congruent with the German constitution.<br><br>Germany:  where the government routinely censors political ideas and historical facts without qualm, but censoring child pornography would be unconstitutional.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Either that OR he wants to make sure that the censorship &gt; law is congruent with the German constitution.Germany : where the government routinely censors political ideas and historical facts without qualm , but censoring child pornography would be unconstitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Either that OR he wants to make sure that the censorship&gt; law is congruent with the German constitution.Germany:  where the government routinely censors political ideas and historical facts without qualm, but censoring child pornography would be unconstitutional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30270428</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259599620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Marginalisation by society is completely different to punishment by a government. It's important to be able to tell racist jokes because the government should not use its power to respond where nobody is being harmed. If you say black people are stupid publicly and identifiably (anonymity is important too) society will ostracise you, and that's fine. If society kidnaps and imprisons you, or steals some of your money, that's NOT fine, and the perpetrators should be punished by the government. That's what government is for. Not making people who've chosen to be offended feel better by punching their opponents in the face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Marginalisation by society is completely different to punishment by a government .
It 's important to be able to tell racist jokes because the government should not use its power to respond where nobody is being harmed .
If you say black people are stupid publicly and identifiably ( anonymity is important too ) society will ostracise you , and that 's fine .
If society kidnaps and imprisons you , or steals some of your money , that 's NOT fine , and the perpetrators should be punished by the government .
That 's what government is for .
Not making people who 've chosen to be offended feel better by punching their opponents in the face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marginalisation by society is completely different to punishment by a government.
It's important to be able to tell racist jokes because the government should not use its power to respond where nobody is being harmed.
If you say black people are stupid publicly and identifiably (anonymity is important too) society will ostracise you, and that's fine.
If society kidnaps and imprisons you, or steals some of your money, that's NOT fine, and the perpetrators should be punished by the government.
That's what government is for.
Not making people who've chosen to be offended feel better by punching their opponents in the face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30270172</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The equivalent of the same one that dominated the headlines over here (Australia) after independant senator Nick Xenophon after he came out against the governments' attempts to get a bill passed to put the same sort of thing into effect out here.</p><p>Which is of course that he wants to make sure the censorship law is congruent with the German constitution. Just because the media is interchangeable with the work of stand up comedians (on both sides, although I do have to love that the left (in the US that is. Anywhere else in the western world their viewpoints would see them labelled centre-right) has recognized and embraced that fact with shows like real time and the colbert report) in the US doesn't mean that that is the case in the rest of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The equivalent of the same one that dominated the headlines over here ( Australia ) after independant senator Nick Xenophon after he came out against the governments ' attempts to get a bill passed to put the same sort of thing into effect out here.Which is of course that he wants to make sure the censorship law is congruent with the German constitution .
Just because the media is interchangeable with the work of stand up comedians ( on both sides , although I do have to love that the left ( in the US that is .
Anywhere else in the western world their viewpoints would see them labelled centre-right ) has recognized and embraced that fact with shows like real time and the colbert report ) in the US does n't mean that that is the case in the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The equivalent of the same one that dominated the headlines over here (Australia) after independant senator Nick Xenophon after he came out against the governments' attempts to get a bill passed to put the same sort of thing into effect out here.Which is of course that he wants to make sure the censorship law is congruent with the German constitution.
Just because the media is interchangeable with the work of stand up comedians (on both sides, although I do have to love that the left (in the US that is.
Anywhere else in the western world their viewpoints would see them labelled centre-right) has recognized and embraced that fact with shows like real time and the colbert report) in the US doesn't mean that that is the case in the rest of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264140</id>
	<title>Well done by K&#246;hler.</title>
	<author>Qbertino</author>
	<datestamp>1259493240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Things like these highlight some of the benefits of the German legislative system. Schavan would've been the better choice for the office of president and she'd've probably said 'Have enough information and my verdict is: Forget it' but never the less I'm positively suprised about this.</p><p>K&#246;hler wouldn't have been my President but he has shown balls at other occasions and he has a very polite, neatly shrouded and delicate way of basically saying 'Go fuck yourself' to his party members without publicly hurting any feelings, as soon as day-to-day politics start screwing around again in Germany. He's like a gutter-grid keeping the biggest chunks of crap of the german supreme courts back. Which allready has a hard time keeping up with voiding all the BS Berlin has been coming up with lately.</p><p>Having a chancelor (currently Angela Merkel) for every-day politics and a President as mostly symbolic head-of-state does have its benefits, as it gives the President tthe obligation to use his power to prevent long-term-effects of election-term-based decisions and lobby/decoy/special-interest laws. And keeps him out of the regular decision making which gives him and his actions the required authority and weight.</p><p>My 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things like these highlight some of the benefits of the German legislative system .
Schavan would 've been the better choice for the office of president and she 'd've probably said 'Have enough information and my verdict is : Forget it ' but never the less I 'm positively suprised about this.K   hler would n't have been my President but he has shown balls at other occasions and he has a very polite , neatly shrouded and delicate way of basically saying 'Go fuck yourself ' to his party members without publicly hurting any feelings , as soon as day-to-day politics start screwing around again in Germany .
He 's like a gutter-grid keeping the biggest chunks of crap of the german supreme courts back .
Which allready has a hard time keeping up with voiding all the BS Berlin has been coming up with lately.Having a chancelor ( currently Angela Merkel ) for every-day politics and a President as mostly symbolic head-of-state does have its benefits , as it gives the President tthe obligation to use his power to prevent long-term-effects of election-term-based decisions and lobby/decoy/special-interest laws .
And keeps him out of the regular decision making which gives him and his actions the required authority and weight.My 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things like these highlight some of the benefits of the German legislative system.
Schavan would've been the better choice for the office of president and she'd've probably said 'Have enough information and my verdict is: Forget it' but never the less I'm positively suprised about this.Köhler wouldn't have been my President but he has shown balls at other occasions and he has a very polite, neatly shrouded and delicate way of basically saying 'Go fuck yourself' to his party members without publicly hurting any feelings, as soon as day-to-day politics start screwing around again in Germany.
He's like a gutter-grid keeping the biggest chunks of crap of the german supreme courts back.
Which allready has a hard time keeping up with voiding all the BS Berlin has been coming up with lately.Having a chancelor (currently Angela Merkel) for every-day politics and a President as mostly symbolic head-of-state does have its benefits, as it gives the President tthe obligation to use his power to prevent long-term-effects of election-term-based decisions and lobby/decoy/special-interest laws.
And keeps him out of the regular decision making which gives him and his actions the required authority and weight.My 2 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264748</id>
	<title>Re:Matter of framing</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1259498460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, sure. So long as you aren't wearing any Nazi symbols, or showing Nazi symbols in a game, or showing too much violence/blood in a game or...</p></div></blockquote><p>All countries have their touchy subjects.</p><p>I'm sure you'd have a lot of fun trying to market a game in the US, wherein the Ku Klux Klan go on Nigger Lynchings and Kike Crucifixions.</p><p>Or a Vietnam War game where a mission includes various atrocities that need to be done to complete it.</p><p>Maybe one based on the current conflict in Iraq, where you can earn the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmudiyah\_killings" title="wikipedia.org">Abeer Qasim Hamza</a> [wikipedia.org] achievement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , sure .
So long as you are n't wearing any Nazi symbols , or showing Nazi symbols in a game , or showing too much violence/blood in a game or...All countries have their touchy subjects.I 'm sure you 'd have a lot of fun trying to market a game in the US , wherein the Ku Klux Klan go on Nigger Lynchings and Kike Crucifixions.Or a Vietnam War game where a mission includes various atrocities that need to be done to complete it.Maybe one based on the current conflict in Iraq , where you can earn the Abeer Qasim Hamza [ wikipedia.org ] achievement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, sure.
So long as you aren't wearing any Nazi symbols, or showing Nazi symbols in a game, or showing too much violence/blood in a game or...All countries have their touchy subjects.I'm sure you'd have a lot of fun trying to market a game in the US, wherein the Ku Klux Klan go on Nigger Lynchings and Kike Crucifixions.Or a Vietnam War game where a mission includes various atrocities that need to be done to complete it.Maybe one based on the current conflict in Iraq, where you can earn the Abeer Qasim Hamza [wikipedia.org] achievement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358</id>
	<title>Only two options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259528160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, obviously this guy supports child pornography.</p><p>Either that OR he wants to make sure that the censorship law is congruent with the German constitution.</p><p>Take a wild guess which of those two options is going to dominate headlines...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , obviously this guy supports child pornography.Either that OR he wants to make sure that the censorship law is congruent with the German constitution.Take a wild guess which of those two options is going to dominate headlines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, obviously this guy supports child pornography.Either that OR he wants to make sure that the censorship law is congruent with the German constitution.Take a wild guess which of those two options is going to dominate headlines...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263558</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259486880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The German President is mostly a figurehead. Sort of like the Queen of England. Supposedly serves to preserve tradition, unity, and all that rot. The person with de facto executive power is the Chancellor (think of him as the Prime Minister).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The German President is mostly a figurehead .
Sort of like the Queen of England .
Supposedly serves to preserve tradition , unity , and all that rot .
The person with de facto executive power is the Chancellor ( think of him as the Prime Minister ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The German President is mostly a figurehead.
Sort of like the Queen of England.
Supposedly serves to preserve tradition, unity, and all that rot.
The person with de facto executive power is the Chancellor (think of him as the Prime Minister).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632</id>
	<title>Re:Matter of framing</title>
	<author>Sibko</author>
	<datestamp>1259487900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And, in the realm of censorship, Germany seems to have the most sense</p></div><p>Yeah, sure. So long as you aren't wearing any Nazi symbols, or showing Nazi symbols in a game, or showing too much violence/blood in a game or...
<br> <br>
Of course, German residents will [in typical fashion] defend such actions on the part of the government, but the way I see it, if Nazism is bad enough that there's enormous backlash against it in Germany, you shouldn't even NEED to censor it. People can make up their own goddamn minds.
<br> <br>
Really, all the censorship serves to do is flush it under a rug. The people who want to openly support Nazism [or anything else] should be free to do so, and I should be equally free to deride those people for their beliefs.
<br> <br>
Trying to hide it under the rug doesn't work, and should not be something that a "free and democratic" society should even consider doing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , in the realm of censorship , Germany seems to have the most senseYeah , sure .
So long as you are n't wearing any Nazi symbols , or showing Nazi symbols in a game , or showing too much violence/blood in a game or.. . Of course , German residents will [ in typical fashion ] defend such actions on the part of the government , but the way I see it , if Nazism is bad enough that there 's enormous backlash against it in Germany , you should n't even NEED to censor it .
People can make up their own goddamn minds .
Really , all the censorship serves to do is flush it under a rug .
The people who want to openly support Nazism [ or anything else ] should be free to do so , and I should be equally free to deride those people for their beliefs .
Trying to hide it under the rug does n't work , and should not be something that a " free and democratic " society should even consider doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, in the realm of censorship, Germany seems to have the most senseYeah, sure.
So long as you aren't wearing any Nazi symbols, or showing Nazi symbols in a game, or showing too much violence/blood in a game or...
 
Of course, German residents will [in typical fashion] defend such actions on the part of the government, but the way I see it, if Nazism is bad enough that there's enormous backlash against it in Germany, you shouldn't even NEED to censor it.
People can make up their own goddamn minds.
Really, all the censorship serves to do is flush it under a rug.
The people who want to openly support Nazism [or anything else] should be free to do so, and I should be equally free to deride those people for their beliefs.
Trying to hide it under the rug doesn't work, and should not be something that a "free and democratic" society should even consider doing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264480</id>
	<title>Re:Additional Information</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1259495940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not totally true. K&#246;hler (the president) is still a member of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) (neo-conservatices). And there is no such rule in the German constitution (Grundgesetz) which states, that the president cannot be member of a party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not totally true .
K   hler ( the president ) is still a member of the Christian Democratic Union ( CDU ) ( neo-conservatices ) .
And there is no such rule in the German constitution ( Grundgesetz ) which states , that the president can not be member of a party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not totally true.
Köhler (the president) is still a member of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) (neo-conservatices).
And there is no such rule in the German constitution (Grundgesetz) which states, that the president cannot be member of a party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264112</id>
	<title>Re:Censorship?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259492820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given your email address, I suspect that English is not your first language. So I will try to explain this as clearly as I can. <b>YOU ARE TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG!</b></p><p>"Censorship" occurs automatically when there is anything inhibiting the expression of an idea.</p><p>This includes somebody physically removing content from, say, a book, article, photograph or movie.</p><p>It includes somebody blocking access to a web site due to the content of that web site.</p><p>It even includes somebody preventing himself or herself from saying something because of fears of legal ramifications, physical violence, and so forth.</p><p>It doesn't matter who is unable to express themselves, or what exactly is preventing them from doing so. It's still a case of censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given your email address , I suspect that English is not your first language .
So I will try to explain this as clearly as I can .
YOU ARE TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG !
" Censorship " occurs automatically when there is anything inhibiting the expression of an idea.This includes somebody physically removing content from , say , a book , article , photograph or movie.It includes somebody blocking access to a web site due to the content of that web site.It even includes somebody preventing himself or herself from saying something because of fears of legal ramifications , physical violence , and so forth.It does n't matter who is unable to express themselves , or what exactly is preventing them from doing so .
It 's still a case of censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given your email address, I suspect that English is not your first language.
So I will try to explain this as clearly as I can.
YOU ARE TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG!
"Censorship" occurs automatically when there is anything inhibiting the expression of an idea.This includes somebody physically removing content from, say, a book, article, photograph or movie.It includes somebody blocking access to a web site due to the content of that web site.It even includes somebody preventing himself or herself from saying something because of fears of legal ramifications, physical violence, and so forth.It doesn't matter who is unable to express themselves, or what exactly is preventing them from doing so.
It's still a case of censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268570</id>
	<title>Re:Only two options</title>
	<author>moronoxyd</author>
	<datestamp>1259582640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The German President is the "pet" of our Chancellor Merkel. </i></p><p>Actually, he is not.<br>While ha was elected with the votes of Merkel's party, he more than once criticized the politics of Merkel's government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The German President is the " pet " of our Chancellor Merkel .
Actually , he is not.While ha was elected with the votes of Merkel 's party , he more than once criticized the politics of Merkel 's government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The German President is the "pet" of our Chancellor Merkel.
Actually, he is not.While ha was elected with the votes of Merkel's party, he more than once criticized the politics of Merkel's government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264872</id>
	<title>Re:Matter of framing</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259499660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because I am against child pornography I can't be against censorship? Just because I'm against Fascism I can't be against Communism? Just because I'm against overreaching copy restriction I can't be against rampart copyright infringments?</p><p>The world isn't black and white.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because I am against child pornography I ca n't be against censorship ?
Just because I 'm against Fascism I ca n't be against Communism ?
Just because I 'm against overreaching copy restriction I ca n't be against rampart copyright infringments ? The world is n't black and white .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because I am against child pornography I can't be against censorship?
Just because I'm against Fascism I can't be against Communism?
Just because I'm against overreaching copy restriction I can't be against rampart copyright infringments?The world isn't black and white.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268360</id>
	<title>Re:What the?</title>
	<author>farlukar</author>
	<datestamp>1259579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech</p></div><p>What makes you say that? Is it the "free speech zones" at the Republicrat national conventions or Lenny Bruce's multiple arrests for saying "four letter words" on stage?</p></div><p>I guess that &ldquo;seems&rdquo; is the most important word there...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speechWhat makes you say that ?
Is it the " free speech zones " at the Republicrat national conventions or Lenny Bruce 's multiple arrests for saying " four letter words " on stage ? I guess that    seems    is the most important word there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speechWhat makes you say that?
Is it the "free speech zones" at the Republicrat national conventions or Lenny Bruce's multiple arrests for saying "four letter words" on stage?I guess that “seems” is the most important word there...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269326</id>
	<title>Amen brother.</title>
	<author>GuyFawkes</author>
	<datestamp>1259592240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm older than you (not a lot) and I can empathise 100\%</p><p>In my day as a child I grew up, slowly, day by day, gaining experience of the world.</p><p>Today it is the opposite, kids are (allegedly) shielded from everything, effectively cut off from society and so cut off from any opportunity to grow and learn naturally.</p><p>We are breeding hot house flowers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm older than you ( not a lot ) and I can empathise 100 \ % In my day as a child I grew up , slowly , day by day , gaining experience of the world.Today it is the opposite , kids are ( allegedly ) shielded from everything , effectively cut off from society and so cut off from any opportunity to grow and learn naturally.We are breeding hot house flowers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm older than you (not a lot) and I can empathise 100\%In my day as a child I grew up, slowly, day by day, gaining experience of the world.Today it is the opposite, kids are (allegedly) shielded from everything, effectively cut off from society and so cut off from any opportunity to grow and learn naturally.We are breeding hot house flowers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30276242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30276838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30270230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30270428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30270172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30273738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_29_1910207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1910207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1910207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1910207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263596
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269288
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30276242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30270172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1910207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30270230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1910207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1910207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264712
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30270428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30276838
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30273738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1910207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1910207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30267202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30269326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30271682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_29_1910207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30265438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30266982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30263770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30268708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_29_1910207.30264872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
