<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_15_0042240</id>
	<title>In Israel, Potential Organ Donors Could Jump the Queue</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268676480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>laron writes <i>"In Israel, a new law is in the making: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/13/international/i210040S16.DTL">Holders of donor cards and their families would get preference</a> if they should need an organ for themselves. Apparently this initiative faces resistance from Orthodox rabbis, who hold that organ donation is against religious law. Jacob Lavee, director of the <a href="http://eng.sheba.co.il/Sheba\_Hospitals/Acute\_Care\_Hospital/Division\_of\_Surgery/Cardiac/Heart\_Transplantation/">heart transplant unit at Israel's Sheba Medical Center</a>, and one of the draftees of this new law, hopes that a broader pool of organs will ultimately benefit everyone, but acknowledges that one of his primary motivations is 'to prevent free riders.' (Apparently <em>receiving</em> an organ is OK under religious law.)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>laron writes " In Israel , a new law is in the making : Holders of donor cards and their families would get preference if they should need an organ for themselves .
Apparently this initiative faces resistance from Orthodox rabbis , who hold that organ donation is against religious law .
Jacob Lavee , director of the heart transplant unit at Israel 's Sheba Medical Center , and one of the draftees of this new law , hopes that a broader pool of organs will ultimately benefit everyone , but acknowledges that one of his primary motivations is 'to prevent free riders .
' ( Apparently receiving an organ is OK under religious law .
) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>laron writes "In Israel, a new law is in the making: Holders of donor cards and their families would get preference if they should need an organ for themselves.
Apparently this initiative faces resistance from Orthodox rabbis, who hold that organ donation is against religious law.
Jacob Lavee, director of the heart transplant unit at Israel's Sheba Medical Center, and one of the draftees of this new law, hopes that a broader pool of organs will ultimately benefit everyone, but acknowledges that one of his primary motivations is 'to prevent free riders.
' (Apparently receiving an organ is OK under religious law.
)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479856</id>
	<title>Re:Orthodox rabbis?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268652480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the article first linked, it is actually clear enough. The issue is *not* whether or not organ donation is good or bad (in Judaism, it's good, and expected, by definition - it saves lives, and human life is above pretty much the rest of the religion in Judaism).

The issue is about how the organs are recovered, and unlike how the article claims it, it isn't merely an issue with Rabbi Eliashiv being the minority view. The problem is entirely with a conflict between the medicinal and religious definition of death. Judaism generally holds that the heart must stop beating for complete death to occur. Current medical standards hold that brain death is more than enough to recognize death.

So donating organs that don't require you to, you know, continue to function as a living person, those were never in question. The problem is that the donor card gives Israel's medical authorities permission to harvest your still-warm body (has to be as close to death for the organs to be useful). In fact, the problem is further complicated when some doctors bend the definition of brain death, in itself a definition that is not clear across international borders, and which saw particular misuse in the UK. That donor card is basically an encouragement to keep the heart beating and, for that matter, possibly skim the correct definition of death. To balance the need of one dying man against the need of many people needing organs. And that's a fairly problematic and delicate situation.

The matter in Israel would have been resolved by now if medical authorities were willing to reassure potential religious Jewish donors that they won't have their bodies harvested in a matter not in accordance with their beliefs, by allowing the formation of decision boards that would also comprise of Rabbis - said boards would ultimately decide on organ harvesting, which would help mitigate fears religious donors have of having such matters done in a manner against their beliefs.

That's all there is to it. But last time such a board was (almost) formed, medical authorities broke the accords, refusing to let anyone in on deciding such matters as time of death other than themselves.

But the thing is - death isn't just a physical matter. And so long as there are people who don't hold purely physical beliefs, they're unlikely to put their final fate completely and utterly in the hands of those who have a completely different set of core values and beliefs - no matter how well-meaning those people may be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the article first linked , it is actually clear enough .
The issue is * not * whether or not organ donation is good or bad ( in Judaism , it 's good , and expected , by definition - it saves lives , and human life is above pretty much the rest of the religion in Judaism ) .
The issue is about how the organs are recovered , and unlike how the article claims it , it is n't merely an issue with Rabbi Eliashiv being the minority view .
The problem is entirely with a conflict between the medicinal and religious definition of death .
Judaism generally holds that the heart must stop beating for complete death to occur .
Current medical standards hold that brain death is more than enough to recognize death .
So donating organs that do n't require you to , you know , continue to function as a living person , those were never in question .
The problem is that the donor card gives Israel 's medical authorities permission to harvest your still-warm body ( has to be as close to death for the organs to be useful ) .
In fact , the problem is further complicated when some doctors bend the definition of brain death , in itself a definition that is not clear across international borders , and which saw particular misuse in the UK .
That donor card is basically an encouragement to keep the heart beating and , for that matter , possibly skim the correct definition of death .
To balance the need of one dying man against the need of many people needing organs .
And that 's a fairly problematic and delicate situation .
The matter in Israel would have been resolved by now if medical authorities were willing to reassure potential religious Jewish donors that they wo n't have their bodies harvested in a matter not in accordance with their beliefs , by allowing the formation of decision boards that would also comprise of Rabbis - said boards would ultimately decide on organ harvesting , which would help mitigate fears religious donors have of having such matters done in a manner against their beliefs .
That 's all there is to it .
But last time such a board was ( almost ) formed , medical authorities broke the accords , refusing to let anyone in on deciding such matters as time of death other than themselves .
But the thing is - death is n't just a physical matter .
And so long as there are people who do n't hold purely physical beliefs , they 're unlikely to put their final fate completely and utterly in the hands of those who have a completely different set of core values and beliefs - no matter how well-meaning those people may be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the article first linked, it is actually clear enough.
The issue is *not* whether or not organ donation is good or bad (in Judaism, it's good, and expected, by definition - it saves lives, and human life is above pretty much the rest of the religion in Judaism).
The issue is about how the organs are recovered, and unlike how the article claims it, it isn't merely an issue with Rabbi Eliashiv being the minority view.
The problem is entirely with a conflict between the medicinal and religious definition of death.
Judaism generally holds that the heart must stop beating for complete death to occur.
Current medical standards hold that brain death is more than enough to recognize death.
So donating organs that don't require you to, you know, continue to function as a living person, those were never in question.
The problem is that the donor card gives Israel's medical authorities permission to harvest your still-warm body (has to be as close to death for the organs to be useful).
In fact, the problem is further complicated when some doctors bend the definition of brain death, in itself a definition that is not clear across international borders, and which saw particular misuse in the UK.
That donor card is basically an encouragement to keep the heart beating and, for that matter, possibly skim the correct definition of death.
To balance the need of one dying man against the need of many people needing organs.
And that's a fairly problematic and delicate situation.
The matter in Israel would have been resolved by now if medical authorities were willing to reassure potential religious Jewish donors that they won't have their bodies harvested in a matter not in accordance with their beliefs, by allowing the formation of decision boards that would also comprise of Rabbis - said boards would ultimately decide on organ harvesting, which would help mitigate fears religious donors have of having such matters done in a manner against their beliefs.
That's all there is to it.
But last time such a board was (almost) formed, medical authorities broke the accords, refusing to let anyone in on deciding such matters as time of death other than themselves.
But the thing is - death isn't just a physical matter.
And so long as there are people who don't hold purely physical beliefs, they're unlikely to put their final fate completely and utterly in the hands of those who have a completely different set of core values and beliefs - no matter how well-meaning those people may be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482124</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1268668800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He who has the lungs makes the rules!  Feel the POWER OF RIGHTEOUS MIGHT coursing through your veins!</htmltext>
<tokenext>He who has the lungs makes the rules !
Feel the POWER OF RIGHTEOUS MIGHT coursing through your veins !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He who has the lungs makes the rules!
Feel the POWER OF RIGHTEOUS MIGHT coursing through your veins!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484710</id>
	<title>Re:Religious bullcrap is commonplace here</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1268679540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My advice is to make and enjoy your sandwich quietly. In the unlikely event that somebody asks you about it, straight up lie to their face and insist that the bread is made specially without yeast. If they doubt you and point out that your bread sure looks leavened, just continue to lie, tell them it's not. (And if they ask you why you are eating a ham sandwich, lie again and tell them it's chicken. And if they ask you about the slice of cheese, lie again and tell them it's -- uh -- hummus or something.)</p><p>In my estimation, the lie is less of a sin than allowing yourself to be needlessly controlled by nonsense. Don't make a stink about it, don't invite controversy -- just do your thing peacefully, and use baldfaced lying to defend yourself if necessary.</p><p>This advice is modeled after The Invisible Man: "overcome them with yeses"; YES this is unleavened bread; YES I am sure of it; YES this is kosher meat; YES I am staying kosher for Passover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My advice is to make and enjoy your sandwich quietly .
In the unlikely event that somebody asks you about it , straight up lie to their face and insist that the bread is made specially without yeast .
If they doubt you and point out that your bread sure looks leavened , just continue to lie , tell them it 's not .
( And if they ask you why you are eating a ham sandwich , lie again and tell them it 's chicken .
And if they ask you about the slice of cheese , lie again and tell them it 's -- uh -- hummus or something .
) In my estimation , the lie is less of a sin than allowing yourself to be needlessly controlled by nonsense .
Do n't make a stink about it , do n't invite controversy -- just do your thing peacefully , and use baldfaced lying to defend yourself if necessary.This advice is modeled after The Invisible Man : " overcome them with yeses " ; YES this is unleavened bread ; YES I am sure of it ; YES this is kosher meat ; YES I am staying kosher for Passover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My advice is to make and enjoy your sandwich quietly.
In the unlikely event that somebody asks you about it, straight up lie to their face and insist that the bread is made specially without yeast.
If they doubt you and point out that your bread sure looks leavened, just continue to lie, tell them it's not.
(And if they ask you why you are eating a ham sandwich, lie again and tell them it's chicken.
And if they ask you about the slice of cheese, lie again and tell them it's -- uh -- hummus or something.
)In my estimation, the lie is less of a sin than allowing yourself to be needlessly controlled by nonsense.
Don't make a stink about it, don't invite controversy -- just do your thing peacefully, and use baldfaced lying to defend yourself if necessary.This advice is modeled after The Invisible Man: "overcome them with yeses"; YES this is unleavened bread; YES I am sure of it; YES this is kosher meat; YES I am staying kosher for Passover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478622</id>
	<title>awesome</title>
	<author>story645</author>
	<datestamp>1268594640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this will open up more discussion of the religious permissibility of organ donations, which is a topic that's nowhere near as black and white as some people make it out to be. Plenty of orthodox rabbis also say donating is permissible (as far as I've heard from members of the New York ultra-orthodox contingent) in a lot of circumstances, but their voices seem to get drowned out far too often. I'd love to see some real discussion of the topic, so while yeah the measure is radical, it's also kind of brilliant. It's also an interesting approach to tackling the religious/secular divide in Israel, which makes the American one look downright friendly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this will open up more discussion of the religious permissibility of organ donations , which is a topic that 's nowhere near as black and white as some people make it out to be .
Plenty of orthodox rabbis also say donating is permissible ( as far as I 've heard from members of the New York ultra-orthodox contingent ) in a lot of circumstances , but their voices seem to get drowned out far too often .
I 'd love to see some real discussion of the topic , so while yeah the measure is radical , it 's also kind of brilliant .
It 's also an interesting approach to tackling the religious/secular divide in Israel , which makes the American one look downright friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this will open up more discussion of the religious permissibility of organ donations, which is a topic that's nowhere near as black and white as some people make it out to be.
Plenty of orthodox rabbis also say donating is permissible (as far as I've heard from members of the New York ultra-orthodox contingent) in a lot of circumstances, but their voices seem to get drowned out far too often.
I'd love to see some real discussion of the topic, so while yeah the measure is radical, it's also kind of brilliant.
It's also an interesting approach to tackling the religious/secular divide in Israel, which makes the American one look downright friendly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479176</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>dziman</author>
	<datestamp>1268645340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you find it interesting that many hospitals have a religious spin on their names?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you find it interesting that many hospitals have a religious spin on their names ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you find it interesting that many hospitals have a religious spin on their names?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532</id>
	<title>Help, help, I'm being oppressed</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268649360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/bike\_war\_paint\_g7EizkFEZktV3IlNUJosQM#ixzz0iESOUtKt" title="nypost.com">There was a story a couple months ago</a> [nypost.com] about a bunch of cyclists in Brooklyn who tried to repaint some bike lanes there. The city had sandblasted them away at the request of Hasidic Jews who complained that bike lanes attracted female cyclists with huge boobies.<p><div class="quote"><p> Groups of bicycle-riding vigilantes have been repainting 14 blocks of Williamsburg roadways ever since the city sandblasted their bike lanes away last week at the request of the Hasidic community.
<br> <br>
The Hasids, who have long had a huge enclave in the now-artist-haven neighborhood, had complained that the Bedford Avenue bike paths posed both a safety and religious hazard.
<br> <br>
Scantily clad hipster cyclists attracted to the Brooklyn neighborhood made it difficult, the Hasids said, to obey religious laws forbidding them from staring at members of the opposite sex in various states of undress. These riders also were disobeying the traffic laws, they complained.
<br> <br>
Two cycling advocates were apprehended by the Shomrim Patrol, a Hasidic neighborhood watch group, as they repainted a section of bike lane at 3:30 a.m. yesterday, but when cops arrived, no one was arrested and no summonses were issued, police said.
<br> <br>
"These people should apply for a job at the DOT," neighborhood activist Isaac Abraham said of the repainting. "You put it on, they take it off -- and they will probably do this again."
<br> <br>
A Department of Transportation spokesman said: "We will continue to work with any community on ways we can make changes to our streets without compromising safety."
<br> <br>
A source close to Mayor Bloomberg said removing the lanes was an effort to appease the Hasidic community just before last month's election.
<br> <br>
Abraham contends the bike lanes put children at risk of getting hit by cars or bicycles as they exited school buses.
<br> <br>
But Baruch Herzfeld, who has tried to bridge the gap between hipsters and Hasids with a bike-rental program, said safety is not the issue so much as xenophobia.
<br> <br>
"They don't want the hipsters in their neighborhood," he said. "It's like in Howard Beach back in the day when they didn't want black people in the neighborhood."
<br> <br>
The cycling advocacy group Transportation Alternatives has not taken sides in the dispute.
<br> <br>
But bike lane or not, "cyclists have a right to be on Bedford Avenue," said Wiley Norvell, a group spokesman.</p></div><p>(First of all, to clear up the nitpick: "But you don't need a bike lane to ride down the street!" It's there to keep people from running you over, not to give you legal sanction to use the street.) What's amazing here is that an American city outside Utah acquiesced to demands that a piece of public infrastructure be degraded, on the basis of someone's religious objections to women who are not covered. It was a boneheaded decision to enforce values of a single religious group upon the public at large.
<br> <br>
In Israel, where I presume there are no bike lanes, there is clearly not the messy separation of church and state that exists here (for now). Maybe it's fine there for religous law to dictate secular law. But there isn't much organ donation in Israel because of people's religious beliefs. An "opt-out" system isn't discriminatory in any way, but the same sort of people who got the City of New York to sandblast its bike lanes are the ones who will claim discrimination.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a story a couple months ago [ nypost.com ] about a bunch of cyclists in Brooklyn who tried to repaint some bike lanes there .
The city had sandblasted them away at the request of Hasidic Jews who complained that bike lanes attracted female cyclists with huge boobies .
Groups of bicycle-riding vigilantes have been repainting 14 blocks of Williamsburg roadways ever since the city sandblasted their bike lanes away last week at the request of the Hasidic community .
The Hasids , who have long had a huge enclave in the now-artist-haven neighborhood , had complained that the Bedford Avenue bike paths posed both a safety and religious hazard .
Scantily clad hipster cyclists attracted to the Brooklyn neighborhood made it difficult , the Hasids said , to obey religious laws forbidding them from staring at members of the opposite sex in various states of undress .
These riders also were disobeying the traffic laws , they complained .
Two cycling advocates were apprehended by the Shomrim Patrol , a Hasidic neighborhood watch group , as they repainted a section of bike lane at 3 : 30 a.m. yesterday , but when cops arrived , no one was arrested and no summonses were issued , police said .
" These people should apply for a job at the DOT , " neighborhood activist Isaac Abraham said of the repainting .
" You put it on , they take it off -- and they will probably do this again .
" A Department of Transportation spokesman said : " We will continue to work with any community on ways we can make changes to our streets without compromising safety .
" A source close to Mayor Bloomberg said removing the lanes was an effort to appease the Hasidic community just before last month 's election .
Abraham contends the bike lanes put children at risk of getting hit by cars or bicycles as they exited school buses .
But Baruch Herzfeld , who has tried to bridge the gap between hipsters and Hasids with a bike-rental program , said safety is not the issue so much as xenophobia .
" They do n't want the hipsters in their neighborhood , " he said .
" It 's like in Howard Beach back in the day when they did n't want black people in the neighborhood .
" The cycling advocacy group Transportation Alternatives has not taken sides in the dispute .
But bike lane or not , " cyclists have a right to be on Bedford Avenue , " said Wiley Norvell , a group spokesman .
( First of all , to clear up the nitpick : " But you do n't need a bike lane to ride down the street !
" It 's there to keep people from running you over , not to give you legal sanction to use the street .
) What 's amazing here is that an American city outside Utah acquiesced to demands that a piece of public infrastructure be degraded , on the basis of someone 's religious objections to women who are not covered .
It was a boneheaded decision to enforce values of a single religious group upon the public at large .
In Israel , where I presume there are no bike lanes , there is clearly not the messy separation of church and state that exists here ( for now ) .
Maybe it 's fine there for religous law to dictate secular law .
But there is n't much organ donation in Israel because of people 's religious beliefs .
An " opt-out " system is n't discriminatory in any way , but the same sort of people who got the City of New York to sandblast its bike lanes are the ones who will claim discrimination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a story a couple months ago [nypost.com] about a bunch of cyclists in Brooklyn who tried to repaint some bike lanes there.
The city had sandblasted them away at the request of Hasidic Jews who complained that bike lanes attracted female cyclists with huge boobies.
Groups of bicycle-riding vigilantes have been repainting 14 blocks of Williamsburg roadways ever since the city sandblasted their bike lanes away last week at the request of the Hasidic community.
The Hasids, who have long had a huge enclave in the now-artist-haven neighborhood, had complained that the Bedford Avenue bike paths posed both a safety and religious hazard.
Scantily clad hipster cyclists attracted to the Brooklyn neighborhood made it difficult, the Hasids said, to obey religious laws forbidding them from staring at members of the opposite sex in various states of undress.
These riders also were disobeying the traffic laws, they complained.
Two cycling advocates were apprehended by the Shomrim Patrol, a Hasidic neighborhood watch group, as they repainted a section of bike lane at 3:30 a.m. yesterday, but when cops arrived, no one was arrested and no summonses were issued, police said.
"These people should apply for a job at the DOT," neighborhood activist Isaac Abraham said of the repainting.
"You put it on, they take it off -- and they will probably do this again.
"
 
A Department of Transportation spokesman said: "We will continue to work with any community on ways we can make changes to our streets without compromising safety.
"
 
A source close to Mayor Bloomberg said removing the lanes was an effort to appease the Hasidic community just before last month's election.
Abraham contends the bike lanes put children at risk of getting hit by cars or bicycles as they exited school buses.
But Baruch Herzfeld, who has tried to bridge the gap between hipsters and Hasids with a bike-rental program, said safety is not the issue so much as xenophobia.
"They don't want the hipsters in their neighborhood," he said.
"It's like in Howard Beach back in the day when they didn't want black people in the neighborhood.
"
 
The cycling advocacy group Transportation Alternatives has not taken sides in the dispute.
But bike lane or not, "cyclists have a right to be on Bedford Avenue," said Wiley Norvell, a group spokesman.
(First of all, to clear up the nitpick: "But you don't need a bike lane to ride down the street!
" It's there to keep people from running you over, not to give you legal sanction to use the street.
) What's amazing here is that an American city outside Utah acquiesced to demands that a piece of public infrastructure be degraded, on the basis of someone's religious objections to women who are not covered.
It was a boneheaded decision to enforce values of a single religious group upon the public at large.
In Israel, where I presume there are no bike lanes, there is clearly not the messy separation of church and state that exists here (for now).
Maybe it's fine there for religous law to dictate secular law.
But there isn't much organ donation in Israel because of people's religious beliefs.
An "opt-out" system isn't discriminatory in any way, but the same sort of people who got the City of New York to sandblast its bike lanes are the ones who will claim discrimination.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478902</id>
	<title>It's Not Just The Rabbis</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268685600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        There are nuts in every religion. Those Orthodox rabbis need to get control of their minds and stop with these ancient laws and notions. Being able to receive an organ but not donate one is flat out loonie tunes. After all when you get an organ the bad organ gets tossed in the trash so your corpse is not completely you when you eventually pass away. Some of these rabbis are as off the wall as the Moslem idiots who blow themselves up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are nuts in every religion .
Those Orthodox rabbis need to get control of their minds and stop with these ancient laws and notions .
Being able to receive an organ but not donate one is flat out loonie tunes .
After all when you get an organ the bad organ gets tossed in the trash so your corpse is not completely you when you eventually pass away .
Some of these rabbis are as off the wall as the Moslem idiots who blow themselves up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        There are nuts in every religion.
Those Orthodox rabbis need to get control of their minds and stop with these ancient laws and notions.
Being able to receive an organ but not donate one is flat out loonie tunes.
After all when you get an organ the bad organ gets tossed in the trash so your corpse is not completely you when you eventually pass away.
Some of these rabbis are as off the wall as the Moslem idiots who blow themselves up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484880</id>
	<title>Re:Never even thought about it</title>
	<author>Fire\_Storm82</author>
	<datestamp>1268680140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you giving your organs to help someone in need? or only to save someone you feel is worth it to save, based on 1 decision they've made?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you giving your organs to help someone in need ?
or only to save someone you feel is worth it to save , based on 1 decision they 've made ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you giving your organs to help someone in need?
or only to save someone you feel is worth it to save, based on 1 decision they've made?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478646</id>
	<title>Many Orthodox Rabbis encourage organ donation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268595000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Israel has various religious sub-groups, and it's only in the extreme orthodox group (Haredim) that organ donation is problematic. In the moderate orthodox community some rabbis have suggested that it's an obligation to sign the donation card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Israel has various religious sub-groups , and it 's only in the extreme orthodox group ( Haredim ) that organ donation is problematic .
In the moderate orthodox community some rabbis have suggested that it 's an obligation to sign the donation card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Israel has various religious sub-groups, and it's only in the extreme orthodox group (Haredim) that organ donation is problematic.
In the moderate orthodox community some rabbis have suggested that it's an obligation to sign the donation card.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480742</id>
	<title>Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268661240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there was ever a just cause for a naked-clyclist protest demonstration, this was it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there was ever a just cause for a naked-clyclist protest demonstration , this was it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there was ever a just cause for a naked-clyclist protest demonstration, this was it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478746</id>
	<title>Free Market solution</title>
	<author>kainosnous</author>
	<datestamp>1268596380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is not a religious one, but an economical one. There is a greater demand than supply, and thus scarcity: the fundamental reason for economics. The trouble with a government trying to regulate the distribution of goods is that they must make decisions that will hurt some people and help others. Basically, they have to define what is "fair", and it is usually an arbitrary decision. Most often, the decision is left to who can bribe the politicians the most, and therefore relating back to money anyways.</p><p>According to the article, there seems to be some occasions where they don't mind donating an organ and therefore may be willing to give something in return. Of course, if this had anything at all to do with religious beliefs, then anybody who believes God is powerful enough to enforce a rule will believe He is powerful enough to provide when that rule is followed. Anything else seems to me more like a social club.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is not a religious one , but an economical one .
There is a greater demand than supply , and thus scarcity : the fundamental reason for economics .
The trouble with a government trying to regulate the distribution of goods is that they must make decisions that will hurt some people and help others .
Basically , they have to define what is " fair " , and it is usually an arbitrary decision .
Most often , the decision is left to who can bribe the politicians the most , and therefore relating back to money anyways.According to the article , there seems to be some occasions where they do n't mind donating an organ and therefore may be willing to give something in return .
Of course , if this had anything at all to do with religious beliefs , then anybody who believes God is powerful enough to enforce a rule will believe He is powerful enough to provide when that rule is followed .
Anything else seems to me more like a social club .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is not a religious one, but an economical one.
There is a greater demand than supply, and thus scarcity: the fundamental reason for economics.
The trouble with a government trying to regulate the distribution of goods is that they must make decisions that will hurt some people and help others.
Basically, they have to define what is "fair", and it is usually an arbitrary decision.
Most often, the decision is left to who can bribe the politicians the most, and therefore relating back to money anyways.According to the article, there seems to be some occasions where they don't mind donating an organ and therefore may be willing to give something in return.
Of course, if this had anything at all to do with religious beliefs, then anybody who believes God is powerful enough to enforce a rule will believe He is powerful enough to provide when that rule is followed.
Anything else seems to me more like a social club.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479748</id>
	<title>"In Israel.."</title>
	<author>kauttapiste</author>
	<datestamp>1268651520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? Not a single <i>"In Soviet Russia.."</i> joke so far?<br>No respect for traditions these days..</p><p>In Soviet Russia, The Queue jumps potiental organ donors!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Not a single " In Soviet Russia.. " joke so far ? No respect for traditions these days..In Soviet Russia , The Queue jumps potiental organ donors !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Not a single "In Soviet Russia.." joke so far?No respect for traditions these days..In Soviet Russia, The Queue jumps potiental organ donors!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480572</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268660040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>majority of orthodox jews have no issue with organ donation.. its a misleading statement. maybe 10\% (or less) of the entire community. The issue comes when you are donating organs for testing and not for saving someones life. giving and receiving is 100\% "kosher" by 99\% of the people..</p><p>get your facts right first please..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>majority of orthodox jews have no issue with organ donation.. its a misleading statement .
maybe 10 \ % ( or less ) of the entire community .
The issue comes when you are donating organs for testing and not for saving someones life .
giving and receiving is 100 \ % " kosher " by 99 \ % of the people..get your facts right first please. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>majority of orthodox jews have no issue with organ donation.. its a misleading statement.
maybe 10\% (or less) of the entire community.
The issue comes when you are donating organs for testing and not for saving someones life.
giving and receiving is 100\% "kosher" by 99\% of the people..get your facts right first please..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479058</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible</p></div><p>Jewish people aren't exactly well known for following the teachings of Christ.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bibleJewish people are n't exactly well known for following the teachings of Christ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bibleJewish people aren't exactly well known for following the teachings of Christ.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485210</id>
	<title>The original organ donor</title>
	<author>200\_success</author>
	<datestamp>1268681460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't Adam the original organ donor?  Eve was created from his rib.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't Adam the original organ donor ?
Eve was created from his rib .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't Adam the original organ donor?
Eve was created from his rib.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479358</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a donor. Are you?</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1268647500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're not a donor, you're a douche bag</p></div><p>Well, I used to be very pro-organ donation, but having seen 'the market' at work in the US, I now feel pretty disgusted. Larry Hagman (a known alcoholic) getting a new liver thanks to his money while others wait in line ? What about Steve jobs, did he have to wait for years in line ? If all it takes is to be rich and famous, then no, I'm sorry, I don't want to participate. Let natural selection run its course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're not a donor , you 're a douche bagWell , I used to be very pro-organ donation , but having seen 'the market ' at work in the US , I now feel pretty disgusted .
Larry Hagman ( a known alcoholic ) getting a new liver thanks to his money while others wait in line ?
What about Steve jobs , did he have to wait for years in line ?
If all it takes is to be rich and famous , then no , I 'm sorry , I do n't want to participate .
Let natural selection run its course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're not a donor, you're a douche bagWell, I used to be very pro-organ donation, but having seen 'the market' at work in the US, I now feel pretty disgusted.
Larry Hagman (a known alcoholic) getting a new liver thanks to his money while others wait in line ?
What about Steve jobs, did he have to wait for years in line ?
If all it takes is to be rich and famous, then no, I'm sorry, I don't want to participate.
Let natural selection run its course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480124</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1268655180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's a life-saving procedure on a minor, you can very easily do something about it legally. Have the hospital lawyers get a court order.  We do it for Jehovah's Witnesses' children and blood on a reasonably frequent basis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's a life-saving procedure on a minor , you can very easily do something about it legally .
Have the hospital lawyers get a court order .
We do it for Jehovah 's Witnesses ' children and blood on a reasonably frequent basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's a life-saving procedure on a minor, you can very easily do something about it legally.
Have the hospital lawyers get a court order.
We do it for Jehovah's Witnesses' children and blood on a reasonably frequent basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650</id>
	<title>Religious bullcrap is commonplace here</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1268595060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah. It's everywhere.</p><p>For instance around late March and early April we'll have passover. It's forbidden to eat anything yeasty or something like that on passover, so no beer, whiskey or more importantly: bread.</p><p>See, I always bring a sandwich with me to work and eat at my desk. It's what I do. I like having my sandwich for lunch because I don't feel like heading to the kitchen. But now I'll have to find an alternative because my office is apparently supposed to be kept kosher for passover.</p><p>Nobody honestly cares in my department, and not in any of the neighboring departments, and not my boss(es).</p><p>How can I have my sandwich without bread?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah .
It 's everywhere.For instance around late March and early April we 'll have passover .
It 's forbidden to eat anything yeasty or something like that on passover , so no beer , whiskey or more importantly : bread.See , I always bring a sandwich with me to work and eat at my desk .
It 's what I do .
I like having my sandwich for lunch because I do n't feel like heading to the kitchen .
But now I 'll have to find an alternative because my office is apparently supposed to be kept kosher for passover.Nobody honestly cares in my department , and not in any of the neighboring departments , and not my boss ( es ) .How can I have my sandwich without bread ?
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah.
It's everywhere.For instance around late March and early April we'll have passover.
It's forbidden to eat anything yeasty or something like that on passover, so no beer, whiskey or more importantly: bread.See, I always bring a sandwich with me to work and eat at my desk.
It's what I do.
I like having my sandwich for lunch because I don't feel like heading to the kitchen.
But now I'll have to find an alternative because my office is apparently supposed to be kept kosher for passover.Nobody honestly cares in my department, and not in any of the neighboring departments, and not my boss(es).How can I have my sandwich without bread?
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481778</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1268667180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a bigger problem to be sorted out first is that even if a person's opted in, the family then overrule that because they're not comfortable with the idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a bigger problem to be sorted out first is that even if a person 's opted in , the family then overrule that because they 're not comfortable with the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a bigger problem to be sorted out first is that even if a person's opted in, the family then overrule that because they're not comfortable with the idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479368</id>
	<title>Re:Never even thought about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268647620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've heard, when one is on the organ donor list, doctors may not be especially reverent with ones remains. This isn't a problem when your body is just a bag of useless bones and organs that might as well be harvested and used to keep other people alive (gee, it sounds rather barbaric when I put it that way...), so I don't indicate "organ donor" however, in the event of my untimely demise, my family is free to determine whether my organs may be donated. I've been thinking about leaving specific instructions, but I've hesitated because it's a bit morbid to say to one's parents, "if I meet an untimely fate, I want my healthy organs donated." Anyway, my religion (Orthodox Christianity) does things a little differently as far as burial, which makes the usual organ donation indication on the driver's license difficult. However, it doesn't bar us from donating organs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've heard , when one is on the organ donor list , doctors may not be especially reverent with ones remains .
This is n't a problem when your body is just a bag of useless bones and organs that might as well be harvested and used to keep other people alive ( gee , it sounds rather barbaric when I put it that way... ) , so I do n't indicate " organ donor " however , in the event of my untimely demise , my family is free to determine whether my organs may be donated .
I 've been thinking about leaving specific instructions , but I 've hesitated because it 's a bit morbid to say to one 's parents , " if I meet an untimely fate , I want my healthy organs donated .
" Anyway , my religion ( Orthodox Christianity ) does things a little differently as far as burial , which makes the usual organ donation indication on the driver 's license difficult .
However , it does n't bar us from donating organs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've heard, when one is on the organ donor list, doctors may not be especially reverent with ones remains.
This isn't a problem when your body is just a bag of useless bones and organs that might as well be harvested and used to keep other people alive (gee, it sounds rather barbaric when I put it that way...), so I don't indicate "organ donor" however, in the event of my untimely demise, my family is free to determine whether my organs may be donated.
I've been thinking about leaving specific instructions, but I've hesitated because it's a bit morbid to say to one's parents, "if I meet an untimely fate, I want my healthy organs donated.
" Anyway, my religion (Orthodox Christianity) does things a little differently as far as burial, which makes the usual organ donation indication on the driver's license difficult.
However, it doesn't bar us from donating organs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479292</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1268646900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could still register as an organ donor. The fact that they won't use it is their decision, not yours.</p><p>Oh and in Belgium EVERYBODY is an organ donor by law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could still register as an organ donor .
The fact that they wo n't use it is their decision , not yours.Oh and in Belgium EVERYBODY is an organ donor by law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could still register as an organ donor.
The fact that they won't use it is their decision, not yours.Oh and in Belgium EVERYBODY is an organ donor by law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481456</id>
	<title>Re:Slippery slope</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1268665620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. Someone modded that troll.</p><p>I think we need a new "-1 : I really don't like this post" because some people don't appear to know what a Troll post is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
Someone modded that troll.I think we need a new " -1 : I really do n't like this post " because some people do n't appear to know what a Troll post is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
Someone modded that troll.I think we need a new "-1 : I really don't like this post" because some people don't appear to know what a Troll post is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478978</id>
	<title>Re:Orthodox rabbis?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under Jewish (Orthodox) Law you are only allowed to donate body parts that will save a life. So a heart is OK, but a cornea is not. So on the Israeli donor form, you tick the boxes of which body parts you are prepared to donate</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under Jewish ( Orthodox ) Law you are only allowed to donate body parts that will save a life .
So a heart is OK , but a cornea is not .
So on the Israeli donor form , you tick the boxes of which body parts you are prepared to donate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under Jewish (Orthodox) Law you are only allowed to donate body parts that will save a life.
So a heart is OK, but a cornea is not.
So on the Israeli donor form, you tick the boxes of which body parts you are prepared to donate</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482426</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a donor. Are you?</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1268670420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could save a few lives by donating more of your income. Most of use don't bother because we know that lives aren't worth it. Donating organs is probably counter-productive in many cases since it diverts health-care money from people with minor issues to those who will live in suffering for only a short time even if they get the transplant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could save a few lives by donating more of your income .
Most of use do n't bother because we know that lives are n't worth it .
Donating organs is probably counter-productive in many cases since it diverts health-care money from people with minor issues to those who will live in suffering for only a short time even if they get the transplant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could save a few lives by donating more of your income.
Most of use don't bother because we know that lives aren't worth it.
Donating organs is probably counter-productive in many cases since it diverts health-care money from people with minor issues to those who will live in suffering for only a short time even if they get the transplant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480690</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they want a sinner's organs anyway?</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1268660940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congrats, you win the Crazy Comment of the Day award.  You've managed to pull conspiracy theories, antisemitism, and just plain old ignorance together into a diatribe that no sane person could ever fully appreciate.  I applaud you, sir!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congrats , you win the Crazy Comment of the Day award .
You 've managed to pull conspiracy theories , antisemitism , and just plain old ignorance together into a diatribe that no sane person could ever fully appreciate .
I applaud you , sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congrats, you win the Crazy Comment of the Day award.
You've managed to pull conspiracy theories, antisemitism, and just plain old ignorance together into a diatribe that no sane person could ever fully appreciate.
I applaud you, sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480646</id>
	<title>Bah, more charedi trouble</title>
	<author>Godefricus</author>
	<datestamp>1268660640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Quote]<br>(Apparently receiving an organ is OK under religious law.)<br>[/Unquote]</p><p>I lived in Israel for a while, and stopped trying to have empathy or to care for the ultra-orthodox when this happened:</p><p>It's shabat.<br>A woman from an ultra-orthodox ('charedi') family in a charedi neighbourhood in J'lem (Mea Shearim) is in labour, but things are difficult.<br>Someone goes out to get an ambulance. The ambulance drives in the neighbourhood, and the same family that ordered for the ambulance to come, start throwing stones at the van because they are driving a car on shabat in their neighbourhood.</p><p>There comes a point when the reasoning of a religious group becomes so messed up that you can't possibly try to take it into account anymore in a normal social relationship.</p><p>So my immediate response when I read about the charedis making trouble again about something that does not fit in their belief system was:<br>Whatever, I don't care. You don't want to give, you don't get, end of story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Quote ] ( Apparently receiving an organ is OK under religious law .
) [ /Unquote ] I lived in Israel for a while , and stopped trying to have empathy or to care for the ultra-orthodox when this happened : It 's shabat.A woman from an ultra-orthodox ( 'charedi ' ) family in a charedi neighbourhood in J'lem ( Mea Shearim ) is in labour , but things are difficult.Someone goes out to get an ambulance .
The ambulance drives in the neighbourhood , and the same family that ordered for the ambulance to come , start throwing stones at the van because they are driving a car on shabat in their neighbourhood.There comes a point when the reasoning of a religious group becomes so messed up that you ca n't possibly try to take it into account anymore in a normal social relationship.So my immediate response when I read about the charedis making trouble again about something that does not fit in their belief system was : Whatever , I do n't care .
You do n't want to give , you do n't get , end of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Quote](Apparently receiving an organ is OK under religious law.
)[/Unquote]I lived in Israel for a while, and stopped trying to have empathy or to care for the ultra-orthodox when this happened:It's shabat.A woman from an ultra-orthodox ('charedi') family in a charedi neighbourhood in J'lem (Mea Shearim) is in labour, but things are difficult.Someone goes out to get an ambulance.
The ambulance drives in the neighbourhood, and the same family that ordered for the ambulance to come, start throwing stones at the van because they are driving a car on shabat in their neighbourhood.There comes a point when the reasoning of a religious group becomes so messed up that you can't possibly try to take it into account anymore in a normal social relationship.So my immediate response when I read about the charedis making trouble again about something that does not fit in their belief system was:Whatever, I don't care.
You don't want to give, you don't get, end of story.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478870</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>EnglishTim</author>
	<datestamp>1268685180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a sufficiently large section of the population that cannot give blood that such a suggestion would be unworkable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a sufficiently large section of the population that can not give blood that such a suggestion would be unworkable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a sufficiently large section of the population that cannot give blood that such a suggestion would be unworkable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31483042</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1268673180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, I agree with you, but I'll go ahead and toss something really controversial and maybe burn some karma:</p><p>How is a society that allows children to die from parental withholding of medication any different than a society that allows children to grow up into a life of crime, or poverty, or obesity, or any number of other things that can happen to kids because they don't have great parents?</p><p>Withholding of medicine is an easy target, but the fact is that society is quite content to let kids fail in numerous ways simply for being born to the wrong parents.  The problem is that fixing this is EXTREMELY difficult if not impossible - it isn't just a matter of throwing a moderate amount of money at the problem.  Avoiding the problem is also highly repugnant to most people since the only way to avoid it is to mandate contraception implants for everybody unless you have a breeding license, or abort children post-conception (and figure out what to do with kids that manage to survive past birth).</p><p>In reality, the odd kid that dies from treatable pneumonia makes the news but is a blip in the statistics.  The real problem (size-wise) is the millions of kids who go on to live in slums or prisons.  As a society we seem to be willing to accept a LOT of the latter but none of the former, and I'm not sure it really has anything to do with being genuinely interested in child welfare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I agree with you , but I 'll go ahead and toss something really controversial and maybe burn some karma : How is a society that allows children to die from parental withholding of medication any different than a society that allows children to grow up into a life of crime , or poverty , or obesity , or any number of other things that can happen to kids because they do n't have great parents ? Withholding of medicine is an easy target , but the fact is that society is quite content to let kids fail in numerous ways simply for being born to the wrong parents .
The problem is that fixing this is EXTREMELY difficult if not impossible - it is n't just a matter of throwing a moderate amount of money at the problem .
Avoiding the problem is also highly repugnant to most people since the only way to avoid it is to mandate contraception implants for everybody unless you have a breeding license , or abort children post-conception ( and figure out what to do with kids that manage to survive past birth ) .In reality , the odd kid that dies from treatable pneumonia makes the news but is a blip in the statistics .
The real problem ( size-wise ) is the millions of kids who go on to live in slums or prisons .
As a society we seem to be willing to accept a LOT of the latter but none of the former , and I 'm not sure it really has anything to do with being genuinely interested in child welfare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I agree with you, but I'll go ahead and toss something really controversial and maybe burn some karma:How is a society that allows children to die from parental withholding of medication any different than a society that allows children to grow up into a life of crime, or poverty, or obesity, or any number of other things that can happen to kids because they don't have great parents?Withholding of medicine is an easy target, but the fact is that society is quite content to let kids fail in numerous ways simply for being born to the wrong parents.
The problem is that fixing this is EXTREMELY difficult if not impossible - it isn't just a matter of throwing a moderate amount of money at the problem.
Avoiding the problem is also highly repugnant to most people since the only way to avoid it is to mandate contraception implants for everybody unless you have a breeding license, or abort children post-conception (and figure out what to do with kids that manage to survive past birth).In reality, the odd kid that dies from treatable pneumonia makes the news but is a blip in the statistics.
The real problem (size-wise) is the millions of kids who go on to live in slums or prisons.
As a society we seem to be willing to accept a LOT of the latter but none of the former, and I'm not sure it really has anything to do with being genuinely interested in child welfare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478926</id>
	<title>Re:Religious bullcrap is commonplace here</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1268685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lettuce wrap? Cuts down on calories too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lettuce wrap ?
Cuts down on calories too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lettuce wrap?
Cuts down on calories too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478994</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they uphold religious beliefs like not being allowed to donate organs... Here's an idea to ponder. How about a religion that doesn't allow you to donate to people of other religions?</p><p>Hypothetically, you could have a religion that requires you only donate organs to other people of the same religion... and anyone that really care's about living would just waiver their religious beliefs by ticking that box on the form and claim to be from of that religion too to get access to an extended pool of donors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they uphold religious beliefs like not being allowed to donate organs... Here 's an idea to ponder .
How about a religion that does n't allow you to donate to people of other religions ? Hypothetically , you could have a religion that requires you only donate organs to other people of the same religion... and anyone that really care 's about living would just waiver their religious beliefs by ticking that box on the form and claim to be from of that religion too to get access to an extended pool of donors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they uphold religious beliefs like not being allowed to donate organs... Here's an idea to ponder.
How about a religion that doesn't allow you to donate to people of other religions?Hypothetically, you could have a religion that requires you only donate organs to other people of the same religion... and anyone that really care's about living would just waiver their religious beliefs by ticking that box on the form and claim to be from of that religion too to get access to an extended pool of donors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31486070</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a donor. Are you?</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1268684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has a communicable disease and that disease would come to you from a donated organ?</i></p><p>Jeez, I keep seeing people make this totally vacuous argument.</p><p>Do you realize that the medical establishment takes extreme caution to weed out low-quality organs? I mean, you obviously do not realize that, so go ahead and consider yourself educated. If you are a smoker, your lungs aren't going to be donated. If you are a drinker, your liver is going to fail the test. But in both cases, your eyes might be of use, or something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has a communicable disease and that disease would come to you from a donated organ ? Jeez , I keep seeing people make this totally vacuous argument.Do you realize that the medical establishment takes extreme caution to weed out low-quality organs ?
I mean , you obviously do not realize that , so go ahead and consider yourself educated .
If you are a smoker , your lungs are n't going to be donated .
If you are a drinker , your liver is going to fail the test .
But in both cases , your eyes might be of use , or something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has a communicable disease and that disease would come to you from a donated organ?Jeez, I keep seeing people make this totally vacuous argument.Do you realize that the medical establishment takes extreme caution to weed out low-quality organs?
I mean, you obviously do not realize that, so go ahead and consider yourself educated.
If you are a smoker, your lungs aren't going to be donated.
If you are a drinker, your liver is going to fail the test.
But in both cases, your eyes might be of use, or something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478910</id>
	<title>The other side</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1268685660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will a healthy "non-donator" be put far behind, for example, other persons likely to die/reject the transplant?  If the free-loaders are a small minority one would think it would be better to keep the emphasis on getting organs to the people who stand the best chances of being able to use them, rather than necessarily who has put in an equitable stake.
</p><p>For that matter, although these people may not have volunteered their organs, if they pay taxes they are still contributing to Israel's socialized health care program.  How much does that count for sharing the burden of these expensive procedures?
</p><p>And will these people still have a reasonable chance of coming up on the waiting list, or are their prospects pretty much nullified?  Seems to me that death is a bit harsh of a penalty for not signing up.  You may as well just void the opt-out bit entirely.  Surely you would rather they be annoying whiners about it than potentially dead.
</p><p>Disclaimer: I'm 100\% for letting people bear the natural consequences of their choices, even when that's death, and would never want to be forced to sign up for anything.  The above simply represents some objections I feel a less libertarian individual might raise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will a healthy " non-donator " be put far behind , for example , other persons likely to die/reject the transplant ?
If the free-loaders are a small minority one would think it would be better to keep the emphasis on getting organs to the people who stand the best chances of being able to use them , rather than necessarily who has put in an equitable stake .
For that matter , although these people may not have volunteered their organs , if they pay taxes they are still contributing to Israel 's socialized health care program .
How much does that count for sharing the burden of these expensive procedures ?
And will these people still have a reasonable chance of coming up on the waiting list , or are their prospects pretty much nullified ?
Seems to me that death is a bit harsh of a penalty for not signing up .
You may as well just void the opt-out bit entirely .
Surely you would rather they be annoying whiners about it than potentially dead .
Disclaimer : I 'm 100 \ % for letting people bear the natural consequences of their choices , even when that 's death , and would never want to be forced to sign up for anything .
The above simply represents some objections I feel a less libertarian individual might raise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will a healthy "non-donator" be put far behind, for example, other persons likely to die/reject the transplant?
If the free-loaders are a small minority one would think it would be better to keep the emphasis on getting organs to the people who stand the best chances of being able to use them, rather than necessarily who has put in an equitable stake.
For that matter, although these people may not have volunteered their organs, if they pay taxes they are still contributing to Israel's socialized health care program.
How much does that count for sharing the burden of these expensive procedures?
And will these people still have a reasonable chance of coming up on the waiting list, or are their prospects pretty much nullified?
Seems to me that death is a bit harsh of a penalty for not signing up.
You may as well just void the opt-out bit entirely.
Surely you would rather they be annoying whiners about it than potentially dead.
Disclaimer: I'm 100\% for letting people bear the natural consequences of their choices, even when that's death, and would never want to be forced to sign up for anything.
The above simply represents some objections I feel a less libertarian individual might raise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>laron</author>
	<datestamp>1268684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be wary of that. There are a lot of people who can't donate blood for many reasons and I wouldn't like to put them at a disadvantage.</p><p>If you have to take heavy medication that makes your organs unsuitable for example, it shouldn't affect your priority to receive organs. It would turn your consent to donate into an empty formality of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be wary of that .
There are a lot of people who ca n't donate blood for many reasons and I would n't like to put them at a disadvantage.If you have to take heavy medication that makes your organs unsuitable for example , it should n't affect your priority to receive organs .
It would turn your consent to donate into an empty formality of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be wary of that.
There are a lot of people who can't donate blood for many reasons and I wouldn't like to put them at a disadvantage.If you have to take heavy medication that makes your organs unsuitable for example, it shouldn't affect your priority to receive organs.
It would turn your consent to donate into an empty formality of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482222</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268669340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the parents should have elected to be a donor? I mean if they really cared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the parents should have elected to be a donor ?
I mean if they really cared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the parents should have elected to be a donor?
I mean if they really cared.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481062</id>
	<title>Bombings?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268663340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone worried about bombings from these fringe groups?</p><p>Religions are stupid. Even if you believe in some kind of a god, she/he/it gave humans the knowledge to use things in our environments for medical purposes.  Things like pig heart valves.</p><p>OTOH, I think that people who are part of the organ donor program SHOULD go to the front of the line over non-donors. I'm always confused that some people believe helping others once your body is dead isn't a good thing.</p><p>Confused I tell you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone worried about bombings from these fringe groups ? Religions are stupid .
Even if you believe in some kind of a god , she/he/it gave humans the knowledge to use things in our environments for medical purposes .
Things like pig heart valves.OTOH , I think that people who are part of the organ donor program SHOULD go to the front of the line over non-donors .
I 'm always confused that some people believe helping others once your body is dead is n't a good thing.Confused I tell you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone worried about bombings from these fringe groups?Religions are stupid.
Even if you believe in some kind of a god, she/he/it gave humans the knowledge to use things in our environments for medical purposes.
Things like pig heart valves.OTOH, I think that people who are part of the organ donor program SHOULD go to the front of the line over non-donors.
I'm always confused that some people believe helping others once your body is dead isn't a good thing.Confused I tell you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478868</id>
	<title>I'm a donor.  Are you?</title>
	<author>TheMiddleRoad</author>
	<datestamp>1268685120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're not a donor, you're a douche bag.  Sign the card or whatever it is in your state.  Let your loved ones know.  You might save a life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're not a donor , you 're a douche bag .
Sign the card or whatever it is in your state .
Let your loved ones know .
You might save a life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're not a donor, you're a douche bag.
Sign the card or whatever it is in your state.
Let your loved ones know.
You might save a life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480896</id>
	<title>Organ donors and priority</title>
	<author>galadriel</author>
	<datestamp>1268662320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a USA group trying to make that more fair:<br><a href="http://www.lifesharers.org/" title="lifesharers.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.lifesharers.org/</a> [lifesharers.org]</p><p>In only a few circumstances is it even a possibility to make an organ donation; death by most illness or simple old age won't leave the organs in a state where they can be harvested.  So only a very small number of deaths make it possible to donate organs.</p><p>No matter what you indicate with an organ donor card or on your driver's license, your family will in fact have the final say about whether or not organ donation happens.  It's a good idea to discuss organ donation with whoever might be making the decision, so they do know what you wanted.</p><p>And it does seem to be to be pretty unfair that someone who wouldn't be willing to donate an organ might be at the top of the queue for receiving an organ donation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a USA group trying to make that more fair : http : //www.lifesharers.org/ [ lifesharers.org ] In only a few circumstances is it even a possibility to make an organ donation ; death by most illness or simple old age wo n't leave the organs in a state where they can be harvested .
So only a very small number of deaths make it possible to donate organs.No matter what you indicate with an organ donor card or on your driver 's license , your family will in fact have the final say about whether or not organ donation happens .
It 's a good idea to discuss organ donation with whoever might be making the decision , so they do know what you wanted.And it does seem to be to be pretty unfair that someone who would n't be willing to donate an organ might be at the top of the queue for receiving an organ donation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a USA group trying to make that more fair:http://www.lifesharers.org/ [lifesharers.org]In only a few circumstances is it even a possibility to make an organ donation; death by most illness or simple old age won't leave the organs in a state where they can be harvested.
So only a very small number of deaths make it possible to donate organs.No matter what you indicate with an organ donor card or on your driver's license, your family will in fact have the final say about whether or not organ donation happens.
It's a good idea to discuss organ donation with whoever might be making the decision, so they do know what you wanted.And it does seem to be to be pretty unfair that someone who wouldn't be willing to donate an organ might be at the top of the queue for receiving an organ donation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479826</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268652240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm banned from donating blood here because I'm gay, even though my blood is clean. I'm not allowed legally marry my partner because we are gay. But you want a system to take our body parts if we die suddenly and don't have all our business in order? (opting out etc.)</p><p>I'd fight against an opt-out system vigorously. Unless people have expressed a desire to donate then show some respect and keep your hands to yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm banned from donating blood here because I 'm gay , even though my blood is clean .
I 'm not allowed legally marry my partner because we are gay .
But you want a system to take our body parts if we die suddenly and do n't have all our business in order ?
( opting out etc .
) I 'd fight against an opt-out system vigorously .
Unless people have expressed a desire to donate then show some respect and keep your hands to yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm banned from donating blood here because I'm gay, even though my blood is clean.
I'm not allowed legally marry my partner because we are gay.
But you want a system to take our body parts if we die suddenly and don't have all our business in order?
(opting out etc.
)I'd fight against an opt-out system vigorously.
Unless people have expressed a desire to donate then show some respect and keep your hands to yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606</id>
	<title>crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268594280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That position sounds so insane, that I thought that there must be more to it than that, but no, it really is that hypocritical. Check out this quote from the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>"If I can't contribute organs because of my religious beliefs, the state shouldn't be allowed to harm me,"</p></div><p>Seriously?  This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible: he tried to show that loving each other and helping each other out is more important than following the law to exactness.  Fortunately it is a minority that feel this way, most of the rabbis in Israel are more sane (according to the article).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That position sounds so insane , that I thought that there must be more to it than that , but no , it really is that hypocritical .
Check out this quote from the article : " If I ca n't contribute organs because of my religious beliefs , the state should n't be allowed to harm me , " Seriously ?
This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible : he tried to show that loving each other and helping each other out is more important than following the law to exactness .
Fortunately it is a minority that feel this way , most of the rabbis in Israel are more sane ( according to the article ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That position sounds so insane, that I thought that there must be more to it than that, but no, it really is that hypocritical.
Check out this quote from the article:"If I can't contribute organs because of my religious beliefs, the state shouldn't be allowed to harm me,"Seriously?
This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible: he tried to show that loving each other and helping each other out is more important than following the law to exactness.
Fortunately it is a minority that feel this way, most of the rabbis in Israel are more sane (according to the article).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478842</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Krahar</author>
	<datestamp>1268684700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Generally more blood is stored than is needed for patients to not start dying. So tying receiving blood to blood donation would result in a situation where the doctor has a cheap, easy and viable way to save his patient, but he then does not because it has been decided some people don't deserve it. That's just nasty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally more blood is stored than is needed for patients to not start dying .
So tying receiving blood to blood donation would result in a situation where the doctor has a cheap , easy and viable way to save his patient , but he then does not because it has been decided some people do n't deserve it .
That 's just nasty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally more blood is stored than is needed for patients to not start dying.
So tying receiving blood to blood donation would result in a situation where the doctor has a cheap, easy and viable way to save his patient, but he then does not because it has been decided some people don't deserve it.
That's just nasty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479572</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268649720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Spain is the family who decides on the last moment if nothing was said by the deceased. Thats why Spain has the biggest donor ratio in the world.</p><p>So it's a sort of opt-out.</p><p>When family is faced with the option usually they say yes, becase a stupid death (usually because of a car accident) at least can benefit some people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Spain is the family who decides on the last moment if nothing was said by the deceased .
Thats why Spain has the biggest donor ratio in the world.So it 's a sort of opt-out.When family is faced with the option usually they say yes , becase a stupid death ( usually because of a car accident ) at least can benefit some people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Spain is the family who decides on the last moment if nothing was said by the deceased.
Thats why Spain has the biggest donor ratio in the world.So it's a sort of opt-out.When family is faced with the option usually they say yes, becase a stupid death (usually because of a car accident) at least can benefit some people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485540</id>
	<title>Every country should do this</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1268682720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry but if you're not willing to share your organs then you shouldn't get any other person's organs. The UK has a situation where they're low on organs because of course everyone is happy to take them but doesn't want to share.
<br> <br>
I think making donors have priority is the most fair solution. You can't have organ donation without donors so we need to do something to encourage people to share. They won't need them when they're dead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but if you 're not willing to share your organs then you should n't get any other person 's organs .
The UK has a situation where they 're low on organs because of course everyone is happy to take them but does n't want to share .
I think making donors have priority is the most fair solution .
You ca n't have organ donation without donors so we need to do something to encourage people to share .
They wo n't need them when they 're dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but if you're not willing to share your organs then you shouldn't get any other person's organs.
The UK has a situation where they're low on organs because of course everyone is happy to take them but doesn't want to share.
I think making donors have priority is the most fair solution.
You can't have organ donation without donors so we need to do something to encourage people to share.
They won't need them when they're dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481680</id>
	<title>Shoot more palestinians</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268666760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear they're full of organs, you fascist Semites! Oh, I forgot, you already do it... <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear they 're full of organs , you fascist Semites !
Oh , I forgot , you already do it... http : //www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear they're full of organs, you fascist Semites!
Oh, I forgot, you already do it... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs [guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489448</id>
	<title>Re:Religious bullcrap is commonplace here</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1268656080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just use pita bread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just use pita bread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just use pita bread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds great to me. I'd extend it to blood donors, with quantity donated moving you further up.</p><p>Humans aren't altruistic in general. It's nothing to be ashamed of - we're programmed to think of ourselves first. Aligning altruistic acts and self-preservation sounds like a great way to encourage altruistic behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds great to me .
I 'd extend it to blood donors , with quantity donated moving you further up.Humans are n't altruistic in general .
It 's nothing to be ashamed of - we 're programmed to think of ourselves first .
Aligning altruistic acts and self-preservation sounds like a great way to encourage altruistic behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds great to me.
I'd extend it to blood donors, with quantity donated moving you further up.Humans aren't altruistic in general.
It's nothing to be ashamed of - we're programmed to think of ourselves first.
Aligning altruistic acts and self-preservation sounds like a great way to encourage altruistic behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479302</id>
	<title>Slippery slope</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1268647080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you start putting an acceptable face on preferential medical treatment, it's the thin end of the wedge.</p><p>How long before this perfectly acceptable and seemingly reasonable tier-ring system is tweaked some more?<br>Perhaps soldiers get preferential treatment? I can see that meeting little public resistance.<br>Then soldiers and their immediate families.<br>And if soldiers, why not fire-fighters or even other medical staff?</p><p>Or politicians?</p><p>At what point do people enter a job market, or start a political campaign, just to help a loved one move up a few spaces on the transplant waiting list?</p><p>And if it did extend as far as politicians, what with campaign contributions being as messed up as they are, how is that any different than buying the organs in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you start putting an acceptable face on preferential medical treatment , it 's the thin end of the wedge.How long before this perfectly acceptable and seemingly reasonable tier-ring system is tweaked some more ? Perhaps soldiers get preferential treatment ?
I can see that meeting little public resistance.Then soldiers and their immediate families.And if soldiers , why not fire-fighters or even other medical staff ? Or politicians ? At what point do people enter a job market , or start a political campaign , just to help a loved one move up a few spaces on the transplant waiting list ? And if it did extend as far as politicians , what with campaign contributions being as messed up as they are , how is that any different than buying the organs in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you start putting an acceptable face on preferential medical treatment, it's the thin end of the wedge.How long before this perfectly acceptable and seemingly reasonable tier-ring system is tweaked some more?Perhaps soldiers get preferential treatment?
I can see that meeting little public resistance.Then soldiers and their immediate families.And if soldiers, why not fire-fighters or even other medical staff?Or politicians?At what point do people enter a job market, or start a political campaign, just to help a loved one move up a few spaces on the transplant waiting list?And if it did extend as far as politicians, what with campaign contributions being as messed up as they are, how is that any different than buying the organs in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489858</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268658420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously?  This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible</p></div><p>Yes, tell that to the people who crucified him!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bibleYes , tell that to the people who crucified him !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bibleYes, tell that to the people who crucified him!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480318</id>
	<title>Well, it sure beats harvesting organs without...</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1268657280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...permission:   <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...permission : http : //www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...permission:   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs [guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478614</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>The Clockwork Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1268594460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Supertramp forecasted this eventuality in 1979's "Give a Little Bit" (from <i>Breakfast in America</i>).  Their prescience continues to astound.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Supertramp forecasted this eventuality in 1979 's " Give a Little Bit " ( from Breakfast in America ) .
Their prescience continues to astound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supertramp forecasted this eventuality in 1979's "Give a Little Bit" (from Breakfast in America).
Their prescience continues to astound.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479990</id>
	<title>Drop the strawman</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1268653740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh I am sure I too can come up with any contrived reason to prove my point.</p><p>It comes down to one thing, people who don't step up to the plate are offended that those who do get some kind of benefit.</p><p>It is a great example of what is wrong with society these days, everyone wants everything they just don't want to earn it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh I am sure I too can come up with any contrived reason to prove my point.It comes down to one thing , people who do n't step up to the plate are offended that those who do get some kind of benefit.It is a great example of what is wrong with society these days , everyone wants everything they just do n't want to earn it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh I am sure I too can come up with any contrived reason to prove my point.It comes down to one thing, people who don't step up to the plate are offended that those who do get some kind of benefit.It is a great example of what is wrong with society these days, everyone wants everything they just don't want to earn it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482126</id>
	<title>Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268668800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is amazing that the government listens to resident concerns?  I guess so, but you are actually upset about this rare occurrence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is amazing that the government listens to resident concerns ?
I guess so , but you are actually upset about this rare occurrence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is amazing that the government listens to resident concerns?
I guess so, but you are actually upset about this rare occurrence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482500</id>
	<title>Israel admits it steals Palestinian organs</title>
	<author>bigsexyjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1268670780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government admits they illegally takes the organs of Palestinians without permission.  Many of these Palestinians where killed by the Israeli military, of course.  They started by taking corneas and gluing the eyes shut to hide their actions.
<p>
I'm not sure why they honor the decisions of the ultra-orthodox, but not Palestinians.  (That was a rhetorical statement of course.  I understand why.)
</p><p>
<a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009122161551898444.html" title="aljazeera.net">Here is a link.</a> [aljazeera.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government admits they illegally takes the organs of Palestinians without permission .
Many of these Palestinians where killed by the Israeli military , of course .
They started by taking corneas and gluing the eyes shut to hide their actions .
I 'm not sure why they honor the decisions of the ultra-orthodox , but not Palestinians .
( That was a rhetorical statement of course .
I understand why .
) Here is a link .
[ aljazeera.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government admits they illegally takes the organs of Palestinians without permission.
Many of these Palestinians where killed by the Israeli military, of course.
They started by taking corneas and gluing the eyes shut to hide their actions.
I'm not sure why they honor the decisions of the ultra-orthodox, but not Palestinians.
(That was a rhetorical statement of course.
I understand why.
)

Here is a link.
[aljazeera.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482184</id>
	<title>Those in need of organs.</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1268669100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those in need of organs are not all dead, they are only mostly dead.  The medical miracle worker might enquire: 'What is it that you've got that's worth living for?'
</p><p>In most cases, the answer is 'to blathe'.  Really it's usually best to just go through their pockets and look for loose change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those in need of organs are not all dead , they are only mostly dead .
The medical miracle worker might enquire : 'What is it that you 've got that 's worth living for ?
' In most cases , the answer is 'to blathe' .
Really it 's usually best to just go through their pockets and look for loose change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those in need of organs are not all dead, they are only mostly dead.
The medical miracle worker might enquire: 'What is it that you've got that's worth living for?
'
In most cases, the answer is 'to blathe'.
Really it's usually best to just go through their pockets and look for loose change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479018</id>
	<title>Simple...</title>
	<author>meekg</author>
	<datestamp>1268643660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Religious law may allow it, but religious people won't donate - it's a cultural thing.  They still want the organs when they need them though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Religious law may allow it , but religious people wo n't donate - it 's a cultural thing .
They still want the organs when they need them though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religious law may allow it, but religious people won't donate - it's a cultural thing.
They still want the organs when they need them though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479388</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268647800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd be wary of that. There are a lot of people who can't donate blood for many reasons and I wouldn't like to put them at a disadvantage.</p><p>If you have to take heavy medication that makes your organs unsuitable for example, it shouldn't affect your priority to receive organs. It would turn your consent to donate into an empty formality of course.</p></div><p>Good point.</p><p>In fact many people with serious disease will be barred from donating organs, including a range of auto-immune disorders. I'd include myself in that category, as I used to be a organ donor card-carrier, and a regular blood donor, until I was diagnosed.</p><p>Fortunately I'm not likely to need a new organ, but does it make sense for chronically ill people to go to the end of the line, in favour of someone with an acute illness or trauma?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be wary of that .
There are a lot of people who ca n't donate blood for many reasons and I would n't like to put them at a disadvantage.If you have to take heavy medication that makes your organs unsuitable for example , it should n't affect your priority to receive organs .
It would turn your consent to donate into an empty formality of course.Good point.In fact many people with serious disease will be barred from donating organs , including a range of auto-immune disorders .
I 'd include myself in that category , as I used to be a organ donor card-carrier , and a regular blood donor , until I was diagnosed.Fortunately I 'm not likely to need a new organ , but does it make sense for chronically ill people to go to the end of the line , in favour of someone with an acute illness or trauma ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be wary of that.
There are a lot of people who can't donate blood for many reasons and I wouldn't like to put them at a disadvantage.If you have to take heavy medication that makes your organs unsuitable for example, it shouldn't affect your priority to receive organs.
It would turn your consent to donate into an empty formality of course.Good point.In fact many people with serious disease will be barred from donating organs, including a range of auto-immune disorders.
I'd include myself in that category, as I used to be a organ donor card-carrier, and a regular blood donor, until I was diagnosed.Fortunately I'm not likely to need a new organ, but does it make sense for chronically ill people to go to the end of the line, in favour of someone with an acute illness or trauma?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478726</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1268596080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I never understood why organ donation is opt-in rather than opt-out.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's a good question - good luck getting any answers, though.</p><p>This has been playing in The Netherlands for a long time now - seems to pop up every few years.</p><p>In 1998 the centralized 'donor register' was started.  People can indicate that they want to be a donor, what bits and pieces, that sort of thing.. or indicate that they do -not- want to be a donor.  So it's opt-in - by default, if you're not registered / don't have aything written down in your will, your next of kin may decide (in which case 75\% of the decisions on this are made against donating organs from the deceased).<br>In 2002 the 'minister of health' said there would be no change for at least 2 years, after 2/3rds of the government decisionmakers decided against an opt-out system.<br>In 2005, another voting round was held... 78 against, 68 -for- an opt-out system.<br>I think there was another debate in 2008 or early 2009 but can't find a reference now.</p><p>None of the press articles on these state why they were against an opt-out system, though.  Only statements such as being in favor of promoting becoming a donor, or at least registering - regardless of your choice.</p><p>I'm guessing it's got to do with the taboo on death that still lingers - probably even moreso in the U.S.</p><p>Either that or they fear that somebody would find out that you actively said "no, you can't take my organs", and then couple this to other databases / provisions / label you a cold, selfish, heartless (can't donate that, then!) bastard, etc.</p><p>I'm all for opt-out, with parents/guardians decision up to age 12, at which point anybody can decide for themselves, and at younger ages if the child can demonstrate that they do indeed know what they are deciding on, the consequences, etc. should it come to it that the parent(s)/guardian(s) disagree with the child.<br>( My Sister's Keeper was an interesting, albeit superficial, exploration of that theme )</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood why organ donation is opt-in rather than opt-out.It 's a good question - good luck getting any answers , though.This has been playing in The Netherlands for a long time now - seems to pop up every few years.In 1998 the centralized 'donor register ' was started .
People can indicate that they want to be a donor , what bits and pieces , that sort of thing.. or indicate that they do -not- want to be a donor .
So it 's opt-in - by default , if you 're not registered / do n't have aything written down in your will , your next of kin may decide ( in which case 75 \ % of the decisions on this are made against donating organs from the deceased ) .In 2002 the 'minister of health ' said there would be no change for at least 2 years , after 2/3rds of the government decisionmakers decided against an opt-out system.In 2005 , another voting round was held... 78 against , 68 -for- an opt-out system.I think there was another debate in 2008 or early 2009 but ca n't find a reference now.None of the press articles on these state why they were against an opt-out system , though .
Only statements such as being in favor of promoting becoming a donor , or at least registering - regardless of your choice.I 'm guessing it 's got to do with the taboo on death that still lingers - probably even moreso in the U.S.Either that or they fear that somebody would find out that you actively said " no , you ca n't take my organs " , and then couple this to other databases / provisions / label you a cold , selfish , heartless ( ca n't donate that , then !
) bastard , etc.I 'm all for opt-out , with parents/guardians decision up to age 12 , at which point anybody can decide for themselves , and at younger ages if the child can demonstrate that they do indeed know what they are deciding on , the consequences , etc .
should it come to it that the parent ( s ) /guardian ( s ) disagree with the child .
( My Sister 's Keeper was an interesting , albeit superficial , exploration of that theme )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood why organ donation is opt-in rather than opt-out.It's a good question - good luck getting any answers, though.This has been playing in The Netherlands for a long time now - seems to pop up every few years.In 1998 the centralized 'donor register' was started.
People can indicate that they want to be a donor, what bits and pieces, that sort of thing.. or indicate that they do -not- want to be a donor.
So it's opt-in - by default, if you're not registered / don't have aything written down in your will, your next of kin may decide (in which case 75\% of the decisions on this are made against donating organs from the deceased).In 2002 the 'minister of health' said there would be no change for at least 2 years, after 2/3rds of the government decisionmakers decided against an opt-out system.In 2005, another voting round was held... 78 against, 68 -for- an opt-out system.I think there was another debate in 2008 or early 2009 but can't find a reference now.None of the press articles on these state why they were against an opt-out system, though.
Only statements such as being in favor of promoting becoming a donor, or at least registering - regardless of your choice.I'm guessing it's got to do with the taboo on death that still lingers - probably even moreso in the U.S.Either that or they fear that somebody would find out that you actively said "no, you can't take my organs", and then couple this to other databases / provisions / label you a cold, selfish, heartless (can't donate that, then!
) bastard, etc.I'm all for opt-out, with parents/guardians decision up to age 12, at which point anybody can decide for themselves, and at younger ages if the child can demonstrate that they do indeed know what they are deciding on, the consequences, etc.
should it come to it that the parent(s)/guardian(s) disagree with the child.
( My Sister's Keeper was an interesting, albeit superficial, exploration of that theme )
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485698</id>
	<title>OT-GPL</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268683320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about an Organ Transplant General Public License?</p><p>"I hereby agree to donate my organs, in the event of my death, to anyone in need of them, but only so long as they agree to do the same upon the receipt of my organs, for as long as those organs are within them."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an Organ Transplant General Public License ?
" I hereby agree to donate my organs , in the event of my death , to anyone in need of them , but only so long as they agree to do the same upon the receipt of my organs , for as long as those organs are within them .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an Organ Transplant General Public License?
"I hereby agree to donate my organs, in the event of my death, to anyone in need of them, but only so long as they agree to do the same upon the receipt of my organs, for as long as those organs are within them.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481486</id>
	<title>Not in Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268665740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC the way this is generally handled in Canada is that the kids can be made temporary wards of the local Children's Aid Society for a week or so, while the treatment is administered. The courts generally prefer that alternative approaches be found that satisfy the religious beliefs involved, but if it is not possible, the medical staff have the authority to save a minor child's life regardless of the wishes of the parents - see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's\_Witnesses\_and\_blood\_transfusions" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">link</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC the way this is generally handled in Canada is that the kids can be made temporary wards of the local Children 's Aid Society for a week or so , while the treatment is administered .
The courts generally prefer that alternative approaches be found that satisfy the religious beliefs involved , but if it is not possible , the medical staff have the authority to save a minor child 's life regardless of the wishes of the parents - see link [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC the way this is generally handled in Canada is that the kids can be made temporary wards of the local Children's Aid Society for a week or so, while the treatment is administered.
The courts generally prefer that alternative approaches be found that satisfy the religious beliefs involved, but if it is not possible, the medical staff have the authority to save a minor child's life regardless of the wishes of the parents - see link [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478780</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously?  This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible: he tried to show that loving each other and helping each other out is more important than following the law to exactness.</p></div><p>*cough* They're jewish. Jesus never happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible : he tried to show that loving each other and helping each other out is more important than following the law to exactness .
* cough * They 're jewish .
Jesus never happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible: he tried to show that loving each other and helping each other out is more important than following the law to exactness.
*cough* They're jewish.
Jesus never happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31483822</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1268676240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer to your question is that the policy is not designed to maximize utility, but rather to protect the preferences of a minority position which carries some moral weight. Lots of people (not including myself) don't want their dead bodies hacked up, and our society gives a lot of weight to people controlling their own bodies (and other property) after death.</p><p>I'm an organ donor, but much like with other public policies, I prefer the law to accommodate reasonable minority preferences. (Obviously, "reasonable" is a political determination.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to your question is that the policy is not designed to maximize utility , but rather to protect the preferences of a minority position which carries some moral weight .
Lots of people ( not including myself ) do n't want their dead bodies hacked up , and our society gives a lot of weight to people controlling their own bodies ( and other property ) after death.I 'm an organ donor , but much like with other public policies , I prefer the law to accommodate reasonable minority preferences .
( Obviously , " reasonable " is a political determination .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to your question is that the policy is not designed to maximize utility, but rather to protect the preferences of a minority position which carries some moral weight.
Lots of people (not including myself) don't want their dead bodies hacked up, and our society gives a lot of weight to people controlling their own bodies (and other property) after death.I'm an organ donor, but much like with other public policies, I prefer the law to accommodate reasonable minority preferences.
(Obviously, "reasonable" is a political determination.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482212</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268669220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there someone who can't donate for medical reason but can accept a donation?</p><p>I'm not talking about crazy religious crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there someone who ca n't donate for medical reason but can accept a donation ? I 'm not talking about crazy religious crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there someone who can't donate for medical reason but can accept a donation?I'm not talking about crazy religious crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479326</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1268647260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Australia we went backwards.<br>In at least one state there was a box to tick on the form to apply for or renew a drivers licence that said something like "do you want to be an organ donor".  Most people agreed and had it written right there on the drivers licence for a doctor to read whether they were donating your organs or not.<br>That changed and now there is a more complex process to sign up and a more complex process to identify potential organ donors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Australia we went backwards.In at least one state there was a box to tick on the form to apply for or renew a drivers licence that said something like " do you want to be an organ donor " .
Most people agreed and had it written right there on the drivers licence for a doctor to read whether they were donating your organs or not.That changed and now there is a more complex process to sign up and a more complex process to identify potential organ donors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Australia we went backwards.In at least one state there was a box to tick on the form to apply for or renew a drivers licence that said something like "do you want to be an organ donor".
Most people agreed and had it written right there on the drivers licence for a doctor to read whether they were donating your organs or not.That changed and now there is a more complex process to sign up and a more complex process to identify potential organ donors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480606</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they want a sinner's organs anyway?</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1268660280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because Jews aren't all tied up in sin like Christians are. They're tied up in rules. And as long as *they* didn't break the rule, all is well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Jews are n't all tied up in sin like Christians are .
They 're tied up in rules .
And as long as * they * did n't break the rule , all is well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Jews aren't all tied up in sin like Christians are.
They're tied up in rules.
And as long as *they* didn't break the rule, all is well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484740</id>
	<title>Re:Slippery slope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268679600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't have a problem with preference for anyone that risks their life for the general public, probably not families, and politicians should be last</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't have a problem with preference for anyone that risks their life for the general public , probably not families , and politicians should be last</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't have a problem with preference for anyone that risks their life for the general public, probably not families, and politicians should be last</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478574</id>
	<title>pig heart donors however</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268593800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can go to the end of the line</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can go to the end of the line</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can go to the end of the line</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478946</id>
	<title>devil-get\_advocate()</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I never understood why organ donation is opt-in rather than opt-out. </p><p>I can understand having religious convictions not to be a donor but the default ought to be "your organs are up for grabs"</p></div><p>People don't just oppose organ donation for religious reasons. Harvesting cadavers for scrap parts to extends the life of people whose time has come? Some people oppose this ridiculous cult of life, trying to extend this miserable existence by partially resurrecting the deceased and stagger on through life for another year or two with a zombie organ or two.</p><p>Now, surgeons are already arguing for extracting organs from the dying before they are dead, so that the spare parts are nice and fresh. All that pressure a surgeon is under when a nice and beloved hot chick lies in critical condition, and I'm in there for an in grown toenail... why not let the smelly curmudgeon die to save her. But sure go ahead and pillage my dying carcass. Don't waste the scraps, you could make a nice stew.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood why organ donation is opt-in rather than opt-out .
I can understand having religious convictions not to be a donor but the default ought to be " your organs are up for grabs " People do n't just oppose organ donation for religious reasons .
Harvesting cadavers for scrap parts to extends the life of people whose time has come ?
Some people oppose this ridiculous cult of life , trying to extend this miserable existence by partially resurrecting the deceased and stagger on through life for another year or two with a zombie organ or two.Now , surgeons are already arguing for extracting organs from the dying before they are dead , so that the spare parts are nice and fresh .
All that pressure a surgeon is under when a nice and beloved hot chick lies in critical condition , and I 'm in there for an in grown toenail... why not let the smelly curmudgeon die to save her .
But sure go ahead and pillage my dying carcass .
Do n't waste the scraps , you could make a nice stew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood why organ donation is opt-in rather than opt-out.
I can understand having religious convictions not to be a donor but the default ought to be "your organs are up for grabs"People don't just oppose organ donation for religious reasons.
Harvesting cadavers for scrap parts to extends the life of people whose time has come?
Some people oppose this ridiculous cult of life, trying to extend this miserable existence by partially resurrecting the deceased and stagger on through life for another year or two with a zombie organ or two.Now, surgeons are already arguing for extracting organs from the dying before they are dead, so that the spare parts are nice and fresh.
All that pressure a surgeon is under when a nice and beloved hot chick lies in critical condition, and I'm in there for an in grown toenail... why not let the smelly curmudgeon die to save her.
But sure go ahead and pillage my dying carcass.
Don't waste the scraps, you could make a nice stew.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478652</id>
	<title>cheap christian louboutin shoes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268595120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>buy <a href="http://www.mychristianlouboutinshoes.com/" title="mychristia...nshoes.com" rel="nofollow">cheap christian louboutin shoes</a> [mychristia...nshoes.com] now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>buy cheap christian louboutin shoes [ mychristia...nshoes.com ] now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>buy cheap christian louboutin shoes [mychristia...nshoes.com] now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485328</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268681880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of people who are not allowed to donate, for no medical reason at all. I'm gay, I've always practiced safe sex, I'm tested negative for HIV and other STDs, but I'm not allowed to donate blood or marrow unless I lie about my sexuality. I don't see why I'm more of a risk than the heterosexual sex tourist next door. Also to think that they trust their testing procedures so little is scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of people who are not allowed to donate , for no medical reason at all .
I 'm gay , I 've always practiced safe sex , I 'm tested negative for HIV and other STDs , but I 'm not allowed to donate blood or marrow unless I lie about my sexuality .
I do n't see why I 'm more of a risk than the heterosexual sex tourist next door .
Also to think that they trust their testing procedures so little is scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of people who are not allowed to donate, for no medical reason at all.
I'm gay, I've always practiced safe sex, I'm tested negative for HIV and other STDs, but I'm not allowed to donate blood or marrow unless I lie about my sexuality.
I don't see why I'm more of a risk than the heterosexual sex tourist next door.
Also to think that they trust their testing procedures so little is scary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479204</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they want a sinner's organs anyway?</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1268645580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being an organ donor saves lives.  And donating an organ isn't like donating to some relief fund where you're not entirely sure EXACTLY how much good your $20 actually did.  You donate a heart and you've saved a life, full stop.  You donate a liver, a kidney, etc, you've saved a life (or prolonged one substantially).<br><br>Once you're dead it's not like you're harming your body by allowing someone else to cut into it and use your organs to save lives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being an organ donor saves lives .
And donating an organ is n't like donating to some relief fund where you 're not entirely sure EXACTLY how much good your $ 20 actually did .
You donate a heart and you 've saved a life , full stop .
You donate a liver , a kidney , etc , you 've saved a life ( or prolonged one substantially ) .Once you 're dead it 's not like you 're harming your body by allowing someone else to cut into it and use your organs to save lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being an organ donor saves lives.
And donating an organ isn't like donating to some relief fund where you're not entirely sure EXACTLY how much good your $20 actually did.
You donate a heart and you've saved a life, full stop.
You donate a liver, a kidney, etc, you've saved a life (or prolonged one substantially).Once you're dead it's not like you're harming your body by allowing someone else to cut into it and use your organs to save lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481366</id>
	<title>How About Those Who Can't Donate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268664960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of people out there in this country that would donate at the drop of a hat, if they could.  There are certain genetic and/or blood disorders that rule out these donors from giving an organ to others, but they are able to accept organs just like anyone else without a hightened risk of rejection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of people out there in this country that would donate at the drop of a hat , if they could .
There are certain genetic and/or blood disorders that rule out these donors from giving an organ to others , but they are able to accept organs just like anyone else without a hightened risk of rejection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of people out there in this country that would donate at the drop of a hat, if they could.
There are certain genetic and/or blood disorders that rule out these donors from giving an organ to others, but they are able to accept organs just like anyone else without a hightened risk of rejection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478594</id>
	<title>Hey guise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268594160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Religion is awesome is it not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Religion is awesome is it not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religion is awesome is it not?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478852</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1268684880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, to want an organ but not willing to be a donor sounds hypocritical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , to want an organ but not willing to be a donor sounds hypocritical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, to want an organ but not willing to be a donor sounds hypocritical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480702</id>
	<title>Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed</title>
	<author>gv250</author>
	<datestamp>1268661000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... bike lanes attracted female cyclists with huge boobies.</p></div><p>Where can I buy some paint?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... bike lanes attracted female cyclists with huge boobies.Where can I buy some paint ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... bike lanes attracted female cyclists with huge boobies.Where can I buy some paint?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479224</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a donor. Are you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and you also might save the life of someone who goes on to take someone elses.</p><p>Fuck off you ignorant dick, the philosophy of organ donation isn't as simple as "you're a douche if you don't do it".</p><p>Some of us don't like the concept of helping to keep up artificially an already overpopulated species and are happy with the concept that when we die, we're gone, and we're not saved by some donation and even if we were might end us in a state where we can't contribute anything to society, but may consume a disproportionate amount of resources.</p><p>The human overpopulation problem is a big deal- it's the reason for many wars, it's the reason for climate change and other pollution related problems, it's the reason for starvation in many places and it's the reason for many social ills in some places also (i.e.  higher crime). Keeping people alive artificially well beyond their means is part the reason for it.</p><p>It's ironic that people like you have such an ignorant, simplistic view of how you might save someone's life through organ donation, completely missing the point that you're responsible in the long run for many more deaths.</p><p>The real douchebags are people too fucking stupid to realise that their do-gooder attitudes actually cause the problems they think they're saving against.</p><p>So no, I'm not going to sign, and I'll continue to actively campaign against opt-out organ donation, because it's just one of many factors responsible for more deaths and more problems amongst the human population in the long run. The human population needs to slow down it's growth, death is a natural check on that, it's sad, but it's an essential part of the natural cycle. People should be able to live in a world where they don't have to suffer the problems of overpopulation, why would I want to contribute to a world where they can't?</p><p>Come back and tell me it's okay to donate your organs when you're been to somewhere like certain parts of Africa and Asia, where there are entire families of people near starving to death and having to work in conditions where they suffer and sometimes lose limbs or lives just so that some guy in the US whose been kept alive through organ donation can continue to live his lifestyle where he consumes daily what an entire such family might consume in a month.</p><p>So again, organ donation isn't as simple as "you're a douche if you don't do it". It's a far bigger, far more complex issue than that, and a lot of people are perfectly justified in not being interested in organ donation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and you also might save the life of someone who goes on to take someone elses.Fuck off you ignorant dick , the philosophy of organ donation is n't as simple as " you 're a douche if you do n't do it " .Some of us do n't like the concept of helping to keep up artificially an already overpopulated species and are happy with the concept that when we die , we 're gone , and we 're not saved by some donation and even if we were might end us in a state where we ca n't contribute anything to society , but may consume a disproportionate amount of resources.The human overpopulation problem is a big deal- it 's the reason for many wars , it 's the reason for climate change and other pollution related problems , it 's the reason for starvation in many places and it 's the reason for many social ills in some places also ( i.e .
higher crime ) .
Keeping people alive artificially well beyond their means is part the reason for it.It 's ironic that people like you have such an ignorant , simplistic view of how you might save someone 's life through organ donation , completely missing the point that you 're responsible in the long run for many more deaths.The real douchebags are people too fucking stupid to realise that their do-gooder attitudes actually cause the problems they think they 're saving against.So no , I 'm not going to sign , and I 'll continue to actively campaign against opt-out organ donation , because it 's just one of many factors responsible for more deaths and more problems amongst the human population in the long run .
The human population needs to slow down it 's growth , death is a natural check on that , it 's sad , but it 's an essential part of the natural cycle .
People should be able to live in a world where they do n't have to suffer the problems of overpopulation , why would I want to contribute to a world where they ca n't ? Come back and tell me it 's okay to donate your organs when you 're been to somewhere like certain parts of Africa and Asia , where there are entire families of people near starving to death and having to work in conditions where they suffer and sometimes lose limbs or lives just so that some guy in the US whose been kept alive through organ donation can continue to live his lifestyle where he consumes daily what an entire such family might consume in a month.So again , organ donation is n't as simple as " you 're a douche if you do n't do it " .
It 's a far bigger , far more complex issue than that , and a lot of people are perfectly justified in not being interested in organ donation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and you also might save the life of someone who goes on to take someone elses.Fuck off you ignorant dick, the philosophy of organ donation isn't as simple as "you're a douche if you don't do it".Some of us don't like the concept of helping to keep up artificially an already overpopulated species and are happy with the concept that when we die, we're gone, and we're not saved by some donation and even if we were might end us in a state where we can't contribute anything to society, but may consume a disproportionate amount of resources.The human overpopulation problem is a big deal- it's the reason for many wars, it's the reason for climate change and other pollution related problems, it's the reason for starvation in many places and it's the reason for many social ills in some places also (i.e.
higher crime).
Keeping people alive artificially well beyond their means is part the reason for it.It's ironic that people like you have such an ignorant, simplistic view of how you might save someone's life through organ donation, completely missing the point that you're responsible in the long run for many more deaths.The real douchebags are people too fucking stupid to realise that their do-gooder attitudes actually cause the problems they think they're saving against.So no, I'm not going to sign, and I'll continue to actively campaign against opt-out organ donation, because it's just one of many factors responsible for more deaths and more problems amongst the human population in the long run.
The human population needs to slow down it's growth, death is a natural check on that, it's sad, but it's an essential part of the natural cycle.
People should be able to live in a world where they don't have to suffer the problems of overpopulation, why would I want to contribute to a world where they can't?Come back and tell me it's okay to donate your organs when you're been to somewhere like certain parts of Africa and Asia, where there are entire families of people near starving to death and having to work in conditions where they suffer and sometimes lose limbs or lives just so that some guy in the US whose been kept alive through organ donation can continue to live his lifestyle where he consumes daily what an entire such family might consume in a month.So again, organ donation isn't as simple as "you're a douche if you don't do it".
It's a far bigger, far more complex issue than that, and a lot of people are perfectly justified in not being interested in organ donation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>dziman</author>
	<datestamp>1268645700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should a smoker dying of lung cancer get a second pair of lungs before a person that is not a smoker and did not choose to be an organ donor, but instead has lung cancer due to second hand smoke? That's a nice gray area for you.</p><p>Or would you like it a bit more simple:</p><p>A child whose parents are not organ donors, and can't choose because the child is not old enough, is dying of a disease that has destroyed her lungs. Should the smoking lung cancer patient that selected "organ donor" get the lungs before the child?</p><p>These are hard choices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should a smoker dying of lung cancer get a second pair of lungs before a person that is not a smoker and did not choose to be an organ donor , but instead has lung cancer due to second hand smoke ?
That 's a nice gray area for you.Or would you like it a bit more simple : A child whose parents are not organ donors , and ca n't choose because the child is not old enough , is dying of a disease that has destroyed her lungs .
Should the smoking lung cancer patient that selected " organ donor " get the lungs before the child ? These are hard choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should a smoker dying of lung cancer get a second pair of lungs before a person that is not a smoker and did not choose to be an organ donor, but instead has lung cancer due to second hand smoke?
That's a nice gray area for you.Or would you like it a bit more simple:A child whose parents are not organ donors, and can't choose because the child is not old enough, is dying of a disease that has destroyed her lungs.
Should the smoking lung cancer patient that selected "organ donor" get the lungs before the child?These are hard choices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478862</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sounds great to me. I'd extend it to blood donors, with quantity donated moving you further up.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd support this, provided we eliminated the discrimination present in various countries' blood donation rules. It's still legal for groups such as the Red Cross to discriminate against homosexuals, reinforcing the view of risk-taking sexual behaviour being prevalent only in the homosexual community, and not the populus at large.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds great to me .
I 'd extend it to blood donors , with quantity donated moving you further up.I 'd support this , provided we eliminated the discrimination present in various countries ' blood donation rules .
It 's still legal for groups such as the Red Cross to discriminate against homosexuals , reinforcing the view of risk-taking sexual behaviour being prevalent only in the homosexual community , and not the populus at large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds great to me.
I'd extend it to blood donors, with quantity donated moving you further up.I'd support this, provided we eliminated the discrimination present in various countries' blood donation rules.
It's still legal for groups such as the Red Cross to discriminate against homosexuals, reinforcing the view of risk-taking sexual behaviour being prevalent only in the homosexual community, and not the populus at large.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482176</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they want a sinner's organs anyway?</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1268669100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking pig insulin would be perfectly OK in any circumstance, unless one was swallowing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking pig insulin would be perfectly OK in any circumstance , unless one was swallowing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking pig insulin would be perfectly OK in any circumstance, unless one was swallowing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479616</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Bartab</author>
	<datestamp>1268650140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two points:</p><p>1) Cancers are almost never 'cured' by transplantation. If your organ is failing due to a cancer, be prepared to die regardless of the reason for the cancer. This is largely because the new organ would almost certainly also be a loss.</p><p>2) At least in the US, Children are already at the top of the list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two points : 1 ) Cancers are almost never 'cured ' by transplantation .
If your organ is failing due to a cancer , be prepared to die regardless of the reason for the cancer .
This is largely because the new organ would almost certainly also be a loss.2 ) At least in the US , Children are already at the top of the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two points:1) Cancers are almost never 'cured' by transplantation.
If your organ is failing due to a cancer, be prepared to die regardless of the reason for the cancer.
This is largely because the new organ would almost certainly also be a loss.2) At least in the US, Children are already at the top of the list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480692</id>
	<title>Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed</title>
	<author>Solandri</author>
	<datestamp>1268660940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What's amazing here is that an American city outside Utah acquiesced to demands that a piece of public infrastructure be degraded, on the basis of someone's religious objections to women who are not covered. It was a boneheaded decision to enforce values of a single religious group upon the public at large.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Why is it amazing?  That's the way the U.S. is set up to work - to strike a balance allowing geographical differences in local community standards to coexist with larger scale government standards.  The founders never wanted the entire country to be a homogeneous mass with everything being the same everywhere.  They wanted some wider principles and and guidelines for the entire country, but the flexibility for local regions (initially States) to do things differrently they way they wanted.  So anything not covered by Federal laws are subject to State laws.  Anything not covered by State laws are subject to county ordinances.  Anything not covered by county ordinances are subject to city ordinances.  Anything not covered by city ordinances are subject to smaller official community organizations (e.g. school boards).
<br> <br>
If there are no federal, state, county, or city regulations requiring that bike lanes be present, the local community is free to decide, based on the social standards of the majority of the local residents, whether or not <i>their</i> streets should have bike lanes.  If a community is largely comprised of Hasidic Jews who don't want bike lanes, then as long as a higher layer of government doesn't require bike lanes, they are free to do with their community as they wish.  That their reason is based on their religion is irrelevant.  As long as it doesn't violate a law or ordinance, people can make decisions for their community based on science, religion, Oprah, phase of the moon, or the voices they hear in their head.  If someone feels the majority has gone too far and is violating the rights of the minority, they bring it up in court.
<br> <br>
This is what allows right-wing communities to have ordinances which they are more comfortable with (e.g. no nudie bars).  And allows left-wing communities to have ordinances which they are more comfortable with (e.g. mandatory recycling pickup).  The legal environment set up by these local norms live and die based on people voting - both at the ballot and with their feet (moving into or out of the community).  Laws at the local level which don't work get filtered out, with a lesson learned not to try it at a higher level.  Laws which do work at the local level get noticed as a good idea, and get tried out at a higher level.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's amazing here is that an American city outside Utah acquiesced to demands that a piece of public infrastructure be degraded , on the basis of someone 's religious objections to women who are not covered .
It was a boneheaded decision to enforce values of a single religious group upon the public at large .
Why is it amazing ?
That 's the way the U.S. is set up to work - to strike a balance allowing geographical differences in local community standards to coexist with larger scale government standards .
The founders never wanted the entire country to be a homogeneous mass with everything being the same everywhere .
They wanted some wider principles and and guidelines for the entire country , but the flexibility for local regions ( initially States ) to do things differrently they way they wanted .
So anything not covered by Federal laws are subject to State laws .
Anything not covered by State laws are subject to county ordinances .
Anything not covered by county ordinances are subject to city ordinances .
Anything not covered by city ordinances are subject to smaller official community organizations ( e.g .
school boards ) .
If there are no federal , state , county , or city regulations requiring that bike lanes be present , the local community is free to decide , based on the social standards of the majority of the local residents , whether or not their streets should have bike lanes .
If a community is largely comprised of Hasidic Jews who do n't want bike lanes , then as long as a higher layer of government does n't require bike lanes , they are free to do with their community as they wish .
That their reason is based on their religion is irrelevant .
As long as it does n't violate a law or ordinance , people can make decisions for their community based on science , religion , Oprah , phase of the moon , or the voices they hear in their head .
If someone feels the majority has gone too far and is violating the rights of the minority , they bring it up in court .
This is what allows right-wing communities to have ordinances which they are more comfortable with ( e.g .
no nudie bars ) .
And allows left-wing communities to have ordinances which they are more comfortable with ( e.g .
mandatory recycling pickup ) .
The legal environment set up by these local norms live and die based on people voting - both at the ballot and with their feet ( moving into or out of the community ) .
Laws at the local level which do n't work get filtered out , with a lesson learned not to try it at a higher level .
Laws which do work at the local level get noticed as a good idea , and get tried out at a higher level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's amazing here is that an American city outside Utah acquiesced to demands that a piece of public infrastructure be degraded, on the basis of someone's religious objections to women who are not covered.
It was a boneheaded decision to enforce values of a single religious group upon the public at large.
Why is it amazing?
That's the way the U.S. is set up to work - to strike a balance allowing geographical differences in local community standards to coexist with larger scale government standards.
The founders never wanted the entire country to be a homogeneous mass with everything being the same everywhere.
They wanted some wider principles and and guidelines for the entire country, but the flexibility for local regions (initially States) to do things differrently they way they wanted.
So anything not covered by Federal laws are subject to State laws.
Anything not covered by State laws are subject to county ordinances.
Anything not covered by county ordinances are subject to city ordinances.
Anything not covered by city ordinances are subject to smaller official community organizations (e.g.
school boards).
If there are no federal, state, county, or city regulations requiring that bike lanes be present, the local community is free to decide, based on the social standards of the majority of the local residents, whether or not their streets should have bike lanes.
If a community is largely comprised of Hasidic Jews who don't want bike lanes, then as long as a higher layer of government doesn't require bike lanes, they are free to do with their community as they wish.
That their reason is based on their religion is irrelevant.
As long as it doesn't violate a law or ordinance, people can make decisions for their community based on science, religion, Oprah, phase of the moon, or the voices they hear in their head.
If someone feels the majority has gone too far and is violating the rights of the minority, they bring it up in court.
This is what allows right-wing communities to have ordinances which they are more comfortable with (e.g.
no nudie bars).
And allows left-wing communities to have ordinances which they are more comfortable with (e.g.
mandatory recycling pickup).
The legal environment set up by these local norms live and die based on people voting - both at the ballot and with their feet (moving into or out of the community).
Laws at the local level which don't work get filtered out, with a lesson learned not to try it at a higher level.
Laws which do work at the local level get noticed as a good idea, and get tried out at a higher level.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480440</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1268658720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And legally, you can't do anything, and if you DO give the girl medicaiton and save her life, you can and will be sued for malpractice.</p></div><p>In sane countries those parents would end up in jail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And legally , you ca n't do anything , and if you DO give the girl medicaiton and save her life , you can and will be sued for malpractice.In sane countries those parents would end up in jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And legally, you can't do anything, and if you DO give the girl medicaiton and save her life, you can and will be sued for malpractice.In sane countries those parents would end up in jail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489856</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1268658360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blood donation is about saving people's lives, not politically correct bullshit or opposing 'prevalent' views. It's also a bit of a push calling it discrimination. It isn't anybody's *right* to have their blood taken and nobody is required to accept a donation.<br>And the simple fact of the matter is that certain groups have higher risks than others. Most of them are far lower risk than homosexual men by the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blood donation is about saving people 's lives , not politically correct bullshit or opposing 'prevalent ' views .
It 's also a bit of a push calling it discrimination .
It is n't anybody 's * right * to have their blood taken and nobody is required to accept a donation.And the simple fact of the matter is that certain groups have higher risks than others .
Most of them are far lower risk than homosexual men by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blood donation is about saving people's lives, not politically correct bullshit or opposing 'prevalent' views.
It's also a bit of a push calling it discrimination.
It isn't anybody's *right* to have their blood taken and nobody is required to accept a donation.And the simple fact of the matter is that certain groups have higher risks than others.
Most of them are far lower risk than homosexual men by the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479820</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>renoX</author>
	<datestamp>1268652180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; If you have to take heavy medication that makes your organs unsuitable for example, it shouldn't affect your priority to receive organs. It would turn your consent to donate into an empty formality of course. </p><p>Not really: your organs may be used for medical study for example, which is also a *life or death* issue, even if it's less direct: insufficently trained doctor equal more risks for the patients..<br>'consent for donation' is all what matter, not the state of the organs themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; If you have to take heavy medication that makes your organs unsuitable for example , it should n't affect your priority to receive organs .
It would turn your consent to donate into an empty formality of course .
Not really : your organs may be used for medical study for example , which is also a * life or death * issue , even if it 's less direct : insufficently trained doctor equal more risks for the patients..'consent for donation ' is all what matter , not the state of the organs themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; If you have to take heavy medication that makes your organs unsuitable for example, it shouldn't affect your priority to receive organs.
It would turn your consent to donate into an empty formality of course.
Not really: your organs may be used for medical study for example, which is also a *life or death* issue, even if it's less direct: insufficently trained doctor equal more risks for the patients..'consent for donation' is all what matter, not the state of the organs themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479142</id>
	<title>Humor in title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268645100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; "In Israel, Potential Organ Donors Could Jump the Queue"</p><p>I have a strange feeling that whoever chose this title is an American who has been in Israel, it seems to be poking a bit of fun at Israeli "queuing culture".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; " In Israel , Potential Organ Donors Could Jump the Queue " I have a strange feeling that whoever chose this title is an American who has been in Israel , it seems to be poking a bit of fun at Israeli " queuing culture " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; "In Israel, Potential Organ Donors Could Jump the Queue"I have a strange feeling that whoever chose this title is an American who has been in Israel, it seems to be poking a bit of fun at Israeli "queuing culture".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600</id>
	<title>Never even thought about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268594220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been an organ donor since I got my license when I was sixteen. I never really considered that people who WERE NOT organ donors would receive the same treatment in regards to their placement on the the list of people in need of an organ transplant. Total bullshit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been an organ donor since I got my license when I was sixteen .
I never really considered that people who WERE NOT organ donors would receive the same treatment in regards to their placement on the the list of people in need of an organ transplant .
Total bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been an organ donor since I got my license when I was sixteen.
I never really considered that people who WERE NOT organ donors would receive the same treatment in regards to their placement on the the list of people in need of an organ transplant.
Total bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479830</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Vectormatic</author>
	<datestamp>1268652240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>honestly, i think giving donors preference is WRONG, basically it is an unfair bias on who gets that liver. The person who needs it the most (and wants it obviously) should get it</p><p>If that law is passed, i want to be giving preference at every payed-by-tax institution, since i pay more tax then my average fellow-citizen, i want it so that the people with cheap run-down cars can only drive in the right lane, since they pay less in taxes for using the road..</p><p>This proposal just goes right against the whole belief that everyone should be treated equally, and sure sometimes i would love to be treated better then the rest, but it just isnt fair (and god, how i hate that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>honestly , i think giving donors preference is WRONG , basically it is an unfair bias on who gets that liver .
The person who needs it the most ( and wants it obviously ) should get itIf that law is passed , i want to be giving preference at every payed-by-tax institution , since i pay more tax then my average fellow-citizen , i want it so that the people with cheap run-down cars can only drive in the right lane , since they pay less in taxes for using the road..This proposal just goes right against the whole belief that everyone should be treated equally , and sure sometimes i would love to be treated better then the rest , but it just isnt fair ( and god , how i hate that : P )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>honestly, i think giving donors preference is WRONG, basically it is an unfair bias on who gets that liver.
The person who needs it the most (and wants it obviously) should get itIf that law is passed, i want to be giving preference at every payed-by-tax institution, since i pay more tax then my average fellow-citizen, i want it so that the people with cheap run-down cars can only drive in the right lane, since they pay less in taxes for using the road..This proposal just goes right against the whole belief that everyone should be treated equally, and sure sometimes i would love to be treated better then the rest, but it just isnt fair (and god, how i hate that :P)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478872</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they want a sinner's organs anyway?</title>
	<author>Paradigm\_Complex</author>
	<datestamp>1268685180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That'd be an odd statement from anyone familiar with Judaism itself, as opposed to someone generalizing it along with other religions.<br> <br>

According to most Jews' interpretation of Jewish law, saving lives takes priority over nearly everything else.  This is why, for example, taking pig insulin is perfectly okay.<br> <br>

Consider the stereotype of Jews being doctors.  Jews, in general, don't like throwing lives away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'd be an odd statement from anyone familiar with Judaism itself , as opposed to someone generalizing it along with other religions .
According to most Jews ' interpretation of Jewish law , saving lives takes priority over nearly everything else .
This is why , for example , taking pig insulin is perfectly okay .
Consider the stereotype of Jews being doctors .
Jews , in general , do n't like throwing lives away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'd be an odd statement from anyone familiar with Judaism itself, as opposed to someone generalizing it along with other religions.
According to most Jews' interpretation of Jewish law, saving lives takes priority over nearly everything else.
This is why, for example, taking pig insulin is perfectly okay.
Consider the stereotype of Jews being doctors.
Jews, in general, don't like throwing lives away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482840</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a donor. Are you?</title>
	<author>TheMiddleRoad</author>
	<datestamp>1268672100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If enough people are willing to donate, then the waits won't be as long for everyone, eliminating the unfairness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If enough people are willing to donate , then the waits wo n't be as long for everyone , eliminating the unfairness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If enough people are willing to donate, then the waits won't be as long for everyone, eliminating the unfairness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481646</id>
	<title>Re:Never even thought about it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268666640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the question is, was Steve Jobs a donor before he jumped the queue?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the question is , was Steve Jobs a donor before he jumped the queue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the question is, was Steve Jobs a donor before he jumped the queue?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479150</id>
	<title>I agree to donate my brain.</title>
	<author>JaumPaw</author>
	<datestamp>1268645160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(get away, you zombies! it's not food!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( get away , you zombies !
it 's not food !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(get away, you zombies!
it's not food!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478710</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268595960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're opt-out in many European countries today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're opt-out in many European countries today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're opt-out in many European countries today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478836</id>
	<title>Re:pig heart donors however</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I realize you meant that as a joke, but in case anyone was curious it is okay under Jewish law (as interpreted by most Jews, reform conservative and most orthodox) to receive something along those lines.

For the most part, if it's for medical purposes, pork is fine.  Saving a life takes precedence here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize you meant that as a joke , but in case anyone was curious it is okay under Jewish law ( as interpreted by most Jews , reform conservative and most orthodox ) to receive something along those lines .
For the most part , if it 's for medical purposes , pork is fine .
Saving a life takes precedence here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize you meant that as a joke, but in case anyone was curious it is okay under Jewish law (as interpreted by most Jews, reform conservative and most orthodox) to receive something along those lines.
For the most part, if it's for medical purposes, pork is fine.
Saving a life takes precedence here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481720</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1268667000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see why it should be hard though. If people want to refuse treatment for themselves, fine. But it doesn't follow that they get to harm their child. Parents don't have absolute control over their children - there are all sorts of rules they have to follow, for everything from child abuse to compulsory education. I don't see why trying to prevent treatment for a child isn't treated as abuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why it should be hard though .
If people want to refuse treatment for themselves , fine .
But it does n't follow that they get to harm their child .
Parents do n't have absolute control over their children - there are all sorts of rules they have to follow , for everything from child abuse to compulsory education .
I do n't see why trying to prevent treatment for a child is n't treated as abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why it should be hard though.
If people want to refuse treatment for themselves, fine.
But it doesn't follow that they get to harm their child.
Parents don't have absolute control over their children - there are all sorts of rules they have to follow, for everything from child abuse to compulsory education.
I don't see why trying to prevent treatment for a child isn't treated as abuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480188</id>
	<title>Re:Slippery slope</title>
	<author>the\_raptor</author>
	<datestamp>1268656080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Soldiers in the US have the VA so do get preferential medical treatment over your average non-insured person. Also in any kind of large scale medical emergency (epidemics etc) first responders and those necessary for maintaining essential infrastructure do get preferential treatment. And even on organ waiting lists most of them are hardly first come first served, there are a whole host of subjective factors that alter your place on the list (eg if you are an old fat smoking alcoholic enjoy never getting an organ). Steve Jobs essentially bought himself an organ by shifting residence to get on a much shorter list. Rich people can just go to India and buy a kidney with no legal repercussion in a lot of place (and other organs are available, ones that are essential for life).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Soldiers in the US have the VA so do get preferential medical treatment over your average non-insured person .
Also in any kind of large scale medical emergency ( epidemics etc ) first responders and those necessary for maintaining essential infrastructure do get preferential treatment .
And even on organ waiting lists most of them are hardly first come first served , there are a whole host of subjective factors that alter your place on the list ( eg if you are an old fat smoking alcoholic enjoy never getting an organ ) .
Steve Jobs essentially bought himself an organ by shifting residence to get on a much shorter list .
Rich people can just go to India and buy a kidney with no legal repercussion in a lot of place ( and other organs are available , ones that are essential for life ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Soldiers in the US have the VA so do get preferential medical treatment over your average non-insured person.
Also in any kind of large scale medical emergency (epidemics etc) first responders and those necessary for maintaining essential infrastructure do get preferential treatment.
And even on organ waiting lists most of them are hardly first come first served, there are a whole host of subjective factors that alter your place on the list (eg if you are an old fat smoking alcoholic enjoy never getting an organ).
Steve Jobs essentially bought himself an organ by shifting residence to get on a much shorter list.
Rich people can just go to India and buy a kidney with no legal repercussion in a lot of place (and other organs are available, ones that are essential for life).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</id>
	<title>Opt-out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268594520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never understood why organ donation is opt-in rather than opt-out. </p><p>I can understand having religious convictions not to be a donor but the default ought to be "your organs are up for grabs"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood why organ donation is opt-in rather than opt-out .
I can understand having religious convictions not to be a donor but the default ought to be " your organs are up for grabs "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood why organ donation is opt-in rather than opt-out.
I can understand having religious convictions not to be a donor but the default ought to be "your organs are up for grabs"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484274</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>macaddict</author>
	<datestamp>1268678100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds great to me. I'd extend it to blood donors, with quantity donated moving you further up.</p></div><p>Well, except that blood transfusion tends to be a bit more immediate than getting a new organ. Can you imagine getting admitted to the ER, with major blood loss after a car accident, and the nurses having to take the time to look up how many pints you've donated before they'll give you a transfusion and take you into surgery? (What if you are in another city or state? Will this info be available immediately to every hospital) And then they have to do a comparison to everyone else in the area served by the local blood supply to make sure nobody (in this ER or in any other local hospital) has donated more than you before they give you the blood? All the while, the patient is pumping blood all over the ER floor from his injuries while his <i>exact</i> spot in the 'blood transfusion priority list' is determined. Yeah, that's just <i>bloody</i> brilliant! You should be a hospital administrator!</p><p>It's not the same situation with blood. There is a finite number of organs that can be donated (you can only donate one liver), whereas blood is a renewable resource. Which is why people in need of organs end up on waiting lists. We should not need 'waiting lists' or 'priority lists' for blood transfusions, since people can give blood repeatedly (regular donors make up for some people being unable to donate) and blood can be stored.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds great to me .
I 'd extend it to blood donors , with quantity donated moving you further up.Well , except that blood transfusion tends to be a bit more immediate than getting a new organ .
Can you imagine getting admitted to the ER , with major blood loss after a car accident , and the nurses having to take the time to look up how many pints you 've donated before they 'll give you a transfusion and take you into surgery ?
( What if you are in another city or state ?
Will this info be available immediately to every hospital ) And then they have to do a comparison to everyone else in the area served by the local blood supply to make sure nobody ( in this ER or in any other local hospital ) has donated more than you before they give you the blood ?
All the while , the patient is pumping blood all over the ER floor from his injuries while his exact spot in the 'blood transfusion priority list ' is determined .
Yeah , that 's just bloody brilliant !
You should be a hospital administrator ! It 's not the same situation with blood .
There is a finite number of organs that can be donated ( you can only donate one liver ) , whereas blood is a renewable resource .
Which is why people in need of organs end up on waiting lists .
We should not need 'waiting lists ' or 'priority lists ' for blood transfusions , since people can give blood repeatedly ( regular donors make up for some people being unable to donate ) and blood can be stored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds great to me.
I'd extend it to blood donors, with quantity donated moving you further up.Well, except that blood transfusion tends to be a bit more immediate than getting a new organ.
Can you imagine getting admitted to the ER, with major blood loss after a car accident, and the nurses having to take the time to look up how many pints you've donated before they'll give you a transfusion and take you into surgery?
(What if you are in another city or state?
Will this info be available immediately to every hospital) And then they have to do a comparison to everyone else in the area served by the local blood supply to make sure nobody (in this ER or in any other local hospital) has donated more than you before they give you the blood?
All the while, the patient is pumping blood all over the ER floor from his injuries while his exact spot in the 'blood transfusion priority list' is determined.
Yeah, that's just bloody brilliant!
You should be a hospital administrator!It's not the same situation with blood.
There is a finite number of organs that can be donated (you can only donate one liver), whereas blood is a renewable resource.
Which is why people in need of organs end up on waiting lists.
We should not need 'waiting lists' or 'priority lists' for blood transfusions, since people can give blood repeatedly (regular donors make up for some people being unable to donate) and blood can be stored.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481898</id>
	<title>Re:Never even thought about it</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1268667780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I never really bothered with the sticker as it doesn't really mean anything. The ultimate decision in the US(and here in Australia) lies with your family, unless you don't have next of kin, whether or not you have the sticker really means a whole lot of nothing, your family can overrule your decision either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I never really bothered with the sticker as it does n't really mean anything .
The ultimate decision in the US ( and here in Australia ) lies with your family , unless you do n't have next of kin , whether or not you have the sticker really means a whole lot of nothing , your family can overrule your decision either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I never really bothered with the sticker as it doesn't really mean anything.
The ultimate decision in the US(and here in Australia) lies with your family, unless you don't have next of kin, whether or not you have the sticker really means a whole lot of nothing, your family can overrule your decision either way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479940</id>
	<title>Copyright (C) -2.4E+06 by God</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268653380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(Apparently receiving an organ is OK under religious law.)</p></div></blockquote><p>They're cracking down. As we all know, the problem is uploading, not downloading.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Apparently receiving an organ is OK under religious law .
) They 're cracking down .
As we all know , the problem is uploading , not downloading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Apparently receiving an organ is OK under religious law.
)They're cracking down.
As we all know, the problem is uploading, not downloading.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479118</id>
	<title>Re:Religious bullcrap is commonplace here</title>
	<author>imunfair</author>
	<datestamp>1268644680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not Jewish, but I'm pretty sure you can get pitas(flatbread) without yeast - I think that was the whole point of the 'unleavened bread' thing in the Bible passover story?</p><p>flatbread with a bit of butter inside, toasted and filled with tomato and cucumber slices is pretty tasty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not Jewish , but I 'm pretty sure you can get pitas ( flatbread ) without yeast - I think that was the whole point of the 'unleavened bread ' thing in the Bible passover story ? flatbread with a bit of butter inside , toasted and filled with tomato and cucumber slices is pretty tasty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not Jewish, but I'm pretty sure you can get pitas(flatbread) without yeast - I think that was the whole point of the 'unleavened bread' thing in the Bible passover story?flatbread with a bit of butter inside, toasted and filled with tomato and cucumber slices is pretty tasty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482120</id>
	<title>Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268668800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue in the Bedford Ave. bike lane was not female cyclists with large busts nor female (or male) cyclists in skimpy clothes. This is something that some troublemakers threw out as a distraction. The complaint was about parking (and double-parking especially). If you can't 'stand' your vehicle in the bike lane legally (mind you people all over nyc park, double-park, stand and otherwise obstruct bike lanes all the time in my personal experience) then you are blocking the street. Please see http://www.vosizneias.com/45171/2009/12/18/williamsburg-ny-new-york-citys-largest-bicycling-advocacy-group-decries-planned-nude-bike-protest/ and note especially comment #3 which reads in part "Fact: Since they started the bike lanes in Williamsburg traffic during the day is a nightmare, "</p><p>See also the interview with Paul Steely White, director of Transportation Alternatives, in "Der Yid" which is a Williamsburg newspaper serving the Hasidic community. Quoted at http://transalt.org/newsroom/media/4205</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue in the Bedford Ave. bike lane was not female cyclists with large busts nor female ( or male ) cyclists in skimpy clothes .
This is something that some troublemakers threw out as a distraction .
The complaint was about parking ( and double-parking especially ) .
If you ca n't 'stand ' your vehicle in the bike lane legally ( mind you people all over nyc park , double-park , stand and otherwise obstruct bike lanes all the time in my personal experience ) then you are blocking the street .
Please see http : //www.vosizneias.com/45171/2009/12/18/williamsburg-ny-new-york-citys-largest-bicycling-advocacy-group-decries-planned-nude-bike-protest/ and note especially comment # 3 which reads in part " Fact : Since they started the bike lanes in Williamsburg traffic during the day is a nightmare , " See also the interview with Paul Steely White , director of Transportation Alternatives , in " Der Yid " which is a Williamsburg newspaper serving the Hasidic community .
Quoted at http : //transalt.org/newsroom/media/4205</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue in the Bedford Ave. bike lane was not female cyclists with large busts nor female (or male) cyclists in skimpy clothes.
This is something that some troublemakers threw out as a distraction.
The complaint was about parking (and double-parking especially).
If you can't 'stand' your vehicle in the bike lane legally (mind you people all over nyc park, double-park, stand and otherwise obstruct bike lanes all the time in my personal experience) then you are blocking the street.
Please see http://www.vosizneias.com/45171/2009/12/18/williamsburg-ny-new-york-citys-largest-bicycling-advocacy-group-decries-planned-nude-bike-protest/ and note especially comment #3 which reads in part "Fact: Since they started the bike lanes in Williamsburg traffic during the day is a nightmare, "See also the interview with Paul Steely White, director of Transportation Alternatives, in "Der Yid" which is a Williamsburg newspaper serving the Hasidic community.
Quoted at http://transalt.org/newsroom/media/4205</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489828</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1268658120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Should a smoker dying of lung cancer get a second pair of lungs before a person that is not a smoker and did not choose to be an organ donor, but instead has lung cancer due to second hand smoke? That's a nice gray area for you.<br></i><br>How is it gray?  This isn't some reward for moral superiority, it's an attempt to create more donors.  You claim to be making some sort of "good guy A vs good guy B" choice.  Wrong.  The incentive of getting ahead in the queue is to benefit EVERYONE, not the "morally correct".<br><i><br>These are hard choices.<br></i><br>Only because you've taken entirely the wrong idea here.  I'm just so incredibly tired of the morality card being played.  There's more to life than blame, buddy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should a smoker dying of lung cancer get a second pair of lungs before a person that is not a smoker and did not choose to be an organ donor , but instead has lung cancer due to second hand smoke ?
That 's a nice gray area for you.How is it gray ?
This is n't some reward for moral superiority , it 's an attempt to create more donors .
You claim to be making some sort of " good guy A vs good guy B " choice .
Wrong. The incentive of getting ahead in the queue is to benefit EVERYONE , not the " morally correct " .These are hard choices.Only because you 've taken entirely the wrong idea here .
I 'm just so incredibly tired of the morality card being played .
There 's more to life than blame , buddy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should a smoker dying of lung cancer get a second pair of lungs before a person that is not a smoker and did not choose to be an organ donor, but instead has lung cancer due to second hand smoke?
That's a nice gray area for you.How is it gray?
This isn't some reward for moral superiority, it's an attempt to create more donors.
You claim to be making some sort of "good guy A vs good guy B" choice.
Wrong.  The incentive of getting ahead in the queue is to benefit EVERYONE, not the "morally correct".These are hard choices.Only because you've taken entirely the wrong idea here.
I'm just so incredibly tired of the morality card being played.
There's more to life than blame, buddy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668</id>
	<title>Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268595360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext> I may be missing something, and feel free to tell me. But I have no problem with donors being higher on the list. It makes sense to reward altruism in society and this certainly fits the bill. Sure some religions might interject, but just like organ donation religious practices are a choice and like every choice they carry consequences. That's not to say non-donors shouldn't get organs, but they should not be the priority.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be missing something , and feel free to tell me .
But I have no problem with donors being higher on the list .
It makes sense to reward altruism in society and this certainly fits the bill .
Sure some religions might interject , but just like organ donation religious practices are a choice and like every choice they carry consequences .
That 's not to say non-donors should n't get organs , but they should not be the priority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I may be missing something, and feel free to tell me.
But I have no problem with donors being higher on the list.
It makes sense to reward altruism in society and this certainly fits the bill.
Sure some religions might interject, but just like organ donation religious practices are a choice and like every choice they carry consequences.
That's not to say non-donors shouldn't get organs, but they should not be the priority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479814</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1268652180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I've never understood why you can only <em>donate</em> organs.</p><p>If you could sell the rights to your organs (and will this right to your heirs), then there'd be a lot more availability.  Why should the greedy hospitals and health care companies be the only ones to make money off of your organs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 've never understood why you can only donate organs.If you could sell the rights to your organs ( and will this right to your heirs ) , then there 'd be a lot more availability .
Why should the greedy hospitals and health care companies be the only ones to make money off of your organs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I've never understood why you can only donate organs.If you could sell the rights to your organs (and will this right to your heirs), then there'd be a lot more availability.
Why should the greedy hospitals and health care companies be the only ones to make money off of your organs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480814</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268661720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still only a medical student, so this could be a bit off.</p><p>It's my understanding that one may obtain a court order to provide life-saving treatment to minors, over the religious objections of their parents. I've heard that some ERs have pager #s for judges, for this type of situation. You can martyr yourself (i.e. refuse medical treatment), as an adult with the mental capacity to make decision about your own medical care, but not your dependent children.</p><p>As to being sued for malpractice: you can always be sued, regardless of whether or not your conduct was correct. The idea is, if you practice medicine within established evidence and social norms (i.e. provide lifesaving treatments to children, who can't yet understand the consequences of refusing them), harassing suits should not get very far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still only a medical student , so this could be a bit off.It 's my understanding that one may obtain a court order to provide life-saving treatment to minors , over the religious objections of their parents .
I 've heard that some ERs have pager # s for judges , for this type of situation .
You can martyr yourself ( i.e .
refuse medical treatment ) , as an adult with the mental capacity to make decision about your own medical care , but not your dependent children.As to being sued for malpractice : you can always be sued , regardless of whether or not your conduct was correct .
The idea is , if you practice medicine within established evidence and social norms ( i.e .
provide lifesaving treatments to children , who ca n't yet understand the consequences of refusing them ) , harassing suits should not get very far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still only a medical student, so this could be a bit off.It's my understanding that one may obtain a court order to provide life-saving treatment to minors, over the religious objections of their parents.
I've heard that some ERs have pager #s for judges, for this type of situation.
You can martyr yourself (i.e.
refuse medical treatment), as an adult with the mental capacity to make decision about your own medical care, but not your dependent children.As to being sued for malpractice: you can always be sued, regardless of whether or not your conduct was correct.
The idea is, if you practice medicine within established evidence and social norms (i.e.
provide lifesaving treatments to children, who can't yet understand the consequences of refusing them), harassing suits should not get very far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481244</id>
	<title>Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268664240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly why Hitler had the Jews gassed. They can't keep themselves from sticking their giant hooked noses into everyone's business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why Hitler had the Jews gassed .
They ca n't keep themselves from sticking their giant hooked noses into everyone 's business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why Hitler had the Jews gassed.
They can't keep themselves from sticking their giant hooked noses into everyone's business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479336</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>ars</author>
	<datestamp>1268647320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I posted this before, but I figured I'd scatter these replies everywhere so people will see them. There is no religious object to organ donation.</p><p>The objection is to murder. Jews do not consider brain death to be death - only cardiac death. But most organ donation is done after brain death, but before cardiac death.</p><p>And that's the problem. Not organ donation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I posted this before , but I figured I 'd scatter these replies everywhere so people will see them .
There is no religious object to organ donation.The objection is to murder .
Jews do not consider brain death to be death - only cardiac death .
But most organ donation is done after brain death , but before cardiac death.And that 's the problem .
Not organ donation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I posted this before, but I figured I'd scatter these replies everywhere so people will see them.
There is no religious object to organ donation.The objection is to murder.
Jews do not consider brain death to be death - only cardiac death.
But most organ donation is done after brain death, but before cardiac death.And that's the problem.
Not organ donation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479882</id>
	<title>Yum Yum</title>
	<author>Guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1268652780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ham and Cheese on Matzo.</p><p>Mmm.... Sacrelicious!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ham and Cheese on Matzo.Mmm.... Sacrelicious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ham and Cheese on Matzo.Mmm.... Sacrelicious!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478778</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible</i> </p><p>Jesus is not high on the orthodox required reading list.</p><p>Hah!!! captcha = ducked</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible Jesus is not high on the orthodox required reading list.Hah ! ! !
captcha = ducked</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the kind of stuff Jesus was criticizing in the bible Jesus is not high on the orthodox required reading list.Hah!!!
captcha = ducked</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482018</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268668320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And for good reason, the rate of HIV is something like 60x as prevalent in the gay community as in society at large.  It is also a relatively small community.  Collecting blood from gays is the equivalent of getting crude oil from tar sands - it is a resource that is there, but there are much better choices for obtaining the same thing unless we come up with new extraction techniques.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And for good reason , the rate of HIV is something like 60x as prevalent in the gay community as in society at large .
It is also a relatively small community .
Collecting blood from gays is the equivalent of getting crude oil from tar sands - it is a resource that is there , but there are much better choices for obtaining the same thing unless we come up with new extraction techniques .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for good reason, the rate of HIV is something like 60x as prevalent in the gay community as in society at large.
It is also a relatively small community.
Collecting blood from gays is the equivalent of getting crude oil from tar sands - it is a resource that is there, but there are much better choices for obtaining the same thing unless we come up with new extraction techniques.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484164</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268677680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually your ability to accept and not destroy a donated organ should affect your priority to receive it.  If your on some liver-destroying medication and need a new liver, then you shouldn't get one before someone who isn't going to wreck it with their other medical conditions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually your ability to accept and not destroy a donated organ should affect your priority to receive it .
If your on some liver-destroying medication and need a new liver , then you should n't get one before someone who is n't going to wreck it with their other medical conditions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually your ability to accept and not destroy a donated organ should affect your priority to receive it.
If your on some liver-destroying medication and need a new liver, then you shouldn't get one before someone who isn't going to wreck it with their other medical conditions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482128</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they want a sinner's organs anyway?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268668800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we must save people from God's heavenly embrace.</p><p>really, it makes no sense, like any other cult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we must save people from God 's heavenly embrace.really , it makes no sense , like any other cult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we must save people from God's heavenly embrace.really, it makes no sense, like any other cult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482186</id>
	<title>Re:Religious bullcrap is commonplace here</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268669160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bring sandvich to work. If anyone complain, shoot dem with Natasha. *<br>Alternative:<br>Bring your sandwich to work, if any one complains, sue them for discrimination.</p><p>Forcing you to adhere to another persons religion is against the constitution. In fact, ti's the whole point of freedom of religion.</p><p>Unless you not in the US, obviously.</p><p>*TF2 reference, my bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring sandvich to work .
If anyone complain , shoot dem with Natasha .
* Alternative : Bring your sandwich to work , if any one complains , sue them for discrimination.Forcing you to adhere to another persons religion is against the constitution .
In fact , ti 's the whole point of freedom of religion.Unless you not in the US , obviously .
* TF2 reference , my bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring sandvich to work.
If anyone complain, shoot dem with Natasha.
*Alternative:Bring your sandwich to work, if any one complains, sue them for discrimination.Forcing you to adhere to another persons religion is against the constitution.
In fact, ti's the whole point of freedom of religion.Unless you not in the US, obviously.
*TF2 reference, my bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479166</id>
	<title>Re:Orthodox rabbis?</title>
	<author>Demize</author>
	<datestamp>1268645280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most common interpretation is the one held by most contemporary societies. Brain death = death. However, there are minor groups who believe:</p><p>1) A person is dead only when they irreversibly stop breathing. This is based on the passage where God first breathes into Adam. They also define life as starting as "at first breath".</p><p>2) A person is dead only when their hearts irreversibly stop. This probably based on common sense from most societies back before we could do proper brain scans.</p><p>The problem arises because all the good organs are irreparably damaged when oxygen no longer reaches them. This the problem with both minor interpretations above. The controversy is that:</p><p>1) There is nothing that would lead to an interpretation that receiving organs from a "murdered" person is wrong. Rejecting the organ doesn't undo the deed and, in any case, there is now a potential for a saved life as a result of the act they believe immoral. So they accept the organs, which makes other</p><p>2) People think that they're getting a "free ride". Essentially, while these potential organ-donors are behaving semi-altruistically, they believe those who chose not to be donors are violating a social contract. So while they can't force people to give up their own organs, they are trying to pass legislation where there is now a negative consequence for not participating. This irritates</p><p>3) Altruistic donors, who do not care a whit about the argument and just want to save lives. They don't want their organs being used as pawns in a political/religious game when the whole reason they signed the consent form was to help those in the most need. The problem is that those who have the most need would be bumped below those who did not need the organ as much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most common interpretation is the one held by most contemporary societies .
Brain death = death .
However , there are minor groups who believe : 1 ) A person is dead only when they irreversibly stop breathing .
This is based on the passage where God first breathes into Adam .
They also define life as starting as " at first breath " .2 ) A person is dead only when their hearts irreversibly stop .
This probably based on common sense from most societies back before we could do proper brain scans.The problem arises because all the good organs are irreparably damaged when oxygen no longer reaches them .
This the problem with both minor interpretations above .
The controversy is that : 1 ) There is nothing that would lead to an interpretation that receiving organs from a " murdered " person is wrong .
Rejecting the organ does n't undo the deed and , in any case , there is now a potential for a saved life as a result of the act they believe immoral .
So they accept the organs , which makes other2 ) People think that they 're getting a " free ride " .
Essentially , while these potential organ-donors are behaving semi-altruistically , they believe those who chose not to be donors are violating a social contract .
So while they ca n't force people to give up their own organs , they are trying to pass legislation where there is now a negative consequence for not participating .
This irritates3 ) Altruistic donors , who do not care a whit about the argument and just want to save lives .
They do n't want their organs being used as pawns in a political/religious game when the whole reason they signed the consent form was to help those in the most need .
The problem is that those who have the most need would be bumped below those who did not need the organ as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most common interpretation is the one held by most contemporary societies.
Brain death = death.
However, there are minor groups who believe:1) A person is dead only when they irreversibly stop breathing.
This is based on the passage where God first breathes into Adam.
They also define life as starting as "at first breath".2) A person is dead only when their hearts irreversibly stop.
This probably based on common sense from most societies back before we could do proper brain scans.The problem arises because all the good organs are irreparably damaged when oxygen no longer reaches them.
This the problem with both minor interpretations above.
The controversy is that:1) There is nothing that would lead to an interpretation that receiving organs from a "murdered" person is wrong.
Rejecting the organ doesn't undo the deed and, in any case, there is now a potential for a saved life as a result of the act they believe immoral.
So they accept the organs, which makes other2) People think that they're getting a "free ride".
Essentially, while these potential organ-donors are behaving semi-altruistically, they believe those who chose not to be donors are violating a social contract.
So while they can't force people to give up their own organs, they are trying to pass legislation where there is now a negative consequence for not participating.
This irritates3) Altruistic donors, who do not care a whit about the argument and just want to save lives.
They don't want their organs being used as pawns in a political/religious game when the whole reason they signed the consent form was to help those in the most need.
The problem is that those who have the most need would be bumped below those who did not need the organ as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268596020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always very difficult when religion and medicine clash. If you're a doctor, chances are good that at some point, someone will refuse treatment because of their religious beliefs. Most of the time it's "Whatever, you'll be in pain for the next two weeks, but that's your choice." but it's gets much much harder if say, a little girl is brought in with a fever that's getting worse. "No problem, give her some basic meds, and she'll be good to go." you'd think, and then her parents show up and say, "You can't give her any medication." And you know that without it, the girl WILL die, or at best have severe brain damage. Try to explain this to the parents, and they just say, "It's our beliefs, no medicine can be given." And legally, you can't do anything, and if you DO give the girl medicaiton and save her life, you can and will be sued for malpractice.</p><p>I don't mind religion, so long as it doesn't harm anyone, but people who would actually think, "We would rather our child die then be given medicine." I just don't understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always very difficult when religion and medicine clash .
If you 're a doctor , chances are good that at some point , someone will refuse treatment because of their religious beliefs .
Most of the time it 's " Whatever , you 'll be in pain for the next two weeks , but that 's your choice .
" but it 's gets much much harder if say , a little girl is brought in with a fever that 's getting worse .
" No problem , give her some basic meds , and she 'll be good to go .
" you 'd think , and then her parents show up and say , " You ca n't give her any medication .
" And you know that without it , the girl WILL die , or at best have severe brain damage .
Try to explain this to the parents , and they just say , " It 's our beliefs , no medicine can be given .
" And legally , you ca n't do anything , and if you DO give the girl medicaiton and save her life , you can and will be sued for malpractice.I do n't mind religion , so long as it does n't harm anyone , but people who would actually think , " We would rather our child die then be given medicine .
" I just do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always very difficult when religion and medicine clash.
If you're a doctor, chances are good that at some point, someone will refuse treatment because of their religious beliefs.
Most of the time it's "Whatever, you'll be in pain for the next two weeks, but that's your choice.
" but it's gets much much harder if say, a little girl is brought in with a fever that's getting worse.
"No problem, give her some basic meds, and she'll be good to go.
" you'd think, and then her parents show up and say, "You can't give her any medication.
" And you know that without it, the girl WILL die, or at best have severe brain damage.
Try to explain this to the parents, and they just say, "It's our beliefs, no medicine can be given.
" And legally, you can't do anything, and if you DO give the girl medicaiton and save her life, you can and will be sued for malpractice.I don't mind religion, so long as it doesn't harm anyone, but people who would actually think, "We would rather our child die then be given medicine.
" I just don't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479546</id>
	<title>Not the only criteria</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1268649480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think anyone is saying it'd be the ONLY criteria, just that it should be one that gets considered. There's all kinds of factors that go in to who gets to be where on the list as it is. I think this is a fair one to add. If you are willing to donate your organs, then it is fair to give you a better chance at getting organs.</p><p>No matter what, we have to have some criteria currently since demand outstrips supply and any of the current solutions to that are unacceptable. One thing that might help is to encourage more people to be donors. This might help do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone is saying it 'd be the ONLY criteria , just that it should be one that gets considered .
There 's all kinds of factors that go in to who gets to be where on the list as it is .
I think this is a fair one to add .
If you are willing to donate your organs , then it is fair to give you a better chance at getting organs.No matter what , we have to have some criteria currently since demand outstrips supply and any of the current solutions to that are unacceptable .
One thing that might help is to encourage more people to be donors .
This might help do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone is saying it'd be the ONLY criteria, just that it should be one that gets considered.
There's all kinds of factors that go in to who gets to be where on the list as it is.
I think this is a fair one to add.
If you are willing to donate your organs, then it is fair to give you a better chance at getting organs.No matter what, we have to have some criteria currently since demand outstrips supply and any of the current solutions to that are unacceptable.
One thing that might help is to encourage more people to be donors.
This might help do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782</id>
	<title>Orthodox rabbis?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Orthodox Judaism considers it obligatory if it will save a life, as long as the donor is considered dead as defined by Jewish law (from Wikipedia)</p><p>What gives? Can anyone shed light on this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Orthodox Judaism considers it obligatory if it will save a life , as long as the donor is considered dead as defined by Jewish law ( from Wikipedia ) What gives ?
Can anyone shed light on this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orthodox Judaism considers it obligatory if it will save a life, as long as the donor is considered dead as defined by Jewish law (from Wikipedia)What gives?
Can anyone shed light on this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480394</id>
	<title>Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268658060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm... I have no sympathy for "cyclists" in the city.  Having enjoyed bike riding where I grew up (in the country) I have no problem with cycling in general.  But cyclists in the city seem to have this feeling of entitlement with regard to traffic laws and safety that is frightening.  Running lights, weaving through car traffic, and being a nuisance in general.  Same goes for the early morning runners in their "outfits" especially designed for low speed loping.</p><p>As for well-endowed biker women, I've never seen any.  In fact, I've never seen a female biker who gave cause for a second look.  I will admit to seeing jogging women who were worth a second look.  Maybe they were offended by the extreme use of spandex (again, for low speed biking) by some women.  These women are told by other women and desperate men that the spandex makes them look hot.  It makes them look goofy. Queue the idiots who will say "it depends on the woman wearing the spandex".  Incorrect.  All women wearing spandex look bad.  The same kind of bad as the "narrow hip" jeans wrapped around the top of the leg with the ass popped out the top.</p><p>I'm with the Hasidic Jews on this one, and the "poor cyclists" can go stuff it, with their "wahhh! we need a special lane and privileges".  I'm also noticing that all the Anti-semites (not necessarily the parent poster) have come out for this thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... I have no sympathy for " cyclists " in the city .
Having enjoyed bike riding where I grew up ( in the country ) I have no problem with cycling in general .
But cyclists in the city seem to have this feeling of entitlement with regard to traffic laws and safety that is frightening .
Running lights , weaving through car traffic , and being a nuisance in general .
Same goes for the early morning runners in their " outfits " especially designed for low speed loping.As for well-endowed biker women , I 've never seen any .
In fact , I 've never seen a female biker who gave cause for a second look .
I will admit to seeing jogging women who were worth a second look .
Maybe they were offended by the extreme use of spandex ( again , for low speed biking ) by some women .
These women are told by other women and desperate men that the spandex makes them look hot .
It makes them look goofy .
Queue the idiots who will say " it depends on the woman wearing the spandex " .
Incorrect. All women wearing spandex look bad .
The same kind of bad as the " narrow hip " jeans wrapped around the top of the leg with the ass popped out the top.I 'm with the Hasidic Jews on this one , and the " poor cyclists " can go stuff it , with their " wahhh !
we need a special lane and privileges " .
I 'm also noticing that all the Anti-semites ( not necessarily the parent poster ) have come out for this thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm... I have no sympathy for "cyclists" in the city.
Having enjoyed bike riding where I grew up (in the country) I have no problem with cycling in general.
But cyclists in the city seem to have this feeling of entitlement with regard to traffic laws and safety that is frightening.
Running lights, weaving through car traffic, and being a nuisance in general.
Same goes for the early morning runners in their "outfits" especially designed for low speed loping.As for well-endowed biker women, I've never seen any.
In fact, I've never seen a female biker who gave cause for a second look.
I will admit to seeing jogging women who were worth a second look.
Maybe they were offended by the extreme use of spandex (again, for low speed biking) by some women.
These women are told by other women and desperate men that the spandex makes them look hot.
It makes them look goofy.
Queue the idiots who will say "it depends on the woman wearing the spandex".
Incorrect.  All women wearing spandex look bad.
The same kind of bad as the "narrow hip" jeans wrapped around the top of the leg with the ass popped out the top.I'm with the Hasidic Jews on this one, and the "poor cyclists" can go stuff it, with their "wahhh!
we need a special lane and privileges".
I'm also noticing that all the Anti-semites (not necessarily the parent poster) have come out for this thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481158</id>
	<title>Re:Religious bullcrap is commonplace here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268663760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use flatbread. Dur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use flatbread .
Dur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use flatbread.
Dur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481588</id>
	<title>Put organ donation on the public eye</title>
	<author>esaulgd</author>
	<datestamp>1268666400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This controversy is already going to have a great benefit by making everyone (in Israel at least) think about organ donation and, hopefully, make a decision on whether to become a donor or not.<br>
As I understand, one of the major problems with organ supply is that even people who would be inclined to donate never actually register or discuss the topic with their families. By the time the question is relevant, they are no longer able to state their opinion, so the family has to agonize over the decision and tends to choose the "safe" option of not donating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This controversy is already going to have a great benefit by making everyone ( in Israel at least ) think about organ donation and , hopefully , make a decision on whether to become a donor or not .
As I understand , one of the major problems with organ supply is that even people who would be inclined to donate never actually register or discuss the topic with their families .
By the time the question is relevant , they are no longer able to state their opinion , so the family has to agonize over the decision and tends to choose the " safe " option of not donating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This controversy is already going to have a great benefit by making everyone (in Israel at least) think about organ donation and, hopefully, make a decision on whether to become a donor or not.
As I understand, one of the major problems with organ supply is that even people who would be inclined to donate never actually register or discuss the topic with their families.
By the time the question is relevant, they are no longer able to state their opinion, so the family has to agonize over the decision and tends to choose the "safe" option of not donating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478748</id>
	<title>Good thinking!</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1268596380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apparently this initiative faces resistance from Orthodox rabbis, who hold that organ donation is against religious law.</p></div><p>There's a shortage of donors as it is where too many are dragging their feet when it comes to registering. This new rule seems to make the "game" fairer.<br> <br>
But how I understand it, orthodox who explicitly refuse donating organs apparently want to dictate rules for matches they don't even participate in. What's it then? Do they want be in front of the queue for accepting organs? Play the game or leave the table. Another fine example of religious representatives imposing themselves, interpreting the word of God.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently this initiative faces resistance from Orthodox rabbis , who hold that organ donation is against religious law.There 's a shortage of donors as it is where too many are dragging their feet when it comes to registering .
This new rule seems to make the " game " fairer .
But how I understand it , orthodox who explicitly refuse donating organs apparently want to dictate rules for matches they do n't even participate in .
What 's it then ?
Do they want be in front of the queue for accepting organs ?
Play the game or leave the table .
Another fine example of religious representatives imposing themselves , interpreting the word of God .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently this initiative faces resistance from Orthodox rabbis, who hold that organ donation is against religious law.There's a shortage of donors as it is where too many are dragging their feet when it comes to registering.
This new rule seems to make the "game" fairer.
But how I understand it, orthodox who explicitly refuse donating organs apparently want to dictate rules for matches they don't even participate in.
What's it then?
Do they want be in front of the queue for accepting organs?
Play the game or leave the table.
Another fine example of religious representatives imposing themselves, interpreting the word of God.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479094</id>
	<title>To clear thing out (I hope)</title>
	<author>tsirkin</author>
	<datestamp>1268644500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well,the \_ donation \_ is not a problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.The problem is :<br>When do you consider a person dead<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,so you can use his organs? In other word<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,the moment of death.<br>This is \_ not \_ a simple question to ask.<br>The current knowledge in medicine says the moment of death is the "brain death".<br>However this is not so simple.<br>If there \_ is \_ a possibility of a person to be back alive after a "brain death" then taking his organs is<br>pratically killing him<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,right?<br>This "moment of death" is the real Judaism problem .<br>While doctors say it is OK to take your organs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,how do you make sure of two things:<br>1. The person is \_ really \_ dead (when we think of a person as dead?)<br>2. Why would you trust \_ any \_ doctor on such a thing?<br>So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,there are two main opinions in Judaism:<br>1. The moment of death is the brain death<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,\_ but \_ to make sure that person is really dead<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; there is a need of more then just one doctor to decide<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Let say we need two doctors to say<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; that and one \_ none \_ doctor to see that the two other guys are not going to just kill somebody<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; for money.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There is a law in preparing actually in Isarel that makes all this to happen.</p><p>2. The moment of death is the moment of heart actually stopping.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This is \_ against \_ of current science<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,however I would not trust a science  for this, science changes.</p><p>Note however that if an organ was \_ already \_ taken than the person is already dead anyway and thus<br>the "receiving an organ is OK under religious law".<br>Just trying to clear thing out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well,the \ _ donation \ _ is not a problem .The problem is : When do you consider a person dead ,so you can use his organs ?
In other word ,the moment of death.This is \ _ not \ _ a simple question to ask.The current knowledge in medicine says the moment of death is the " brain death " .However this is not so simple.If there \ _ is \ _ a possibility of a person to be back alive after a " brain death " then taking his organs ispratically killing him ,right ? This " moment of death " is the real Judaism problem .While doctors say it is OK to take your organs ,how do you make sure of two things : 1 .
The person is \ _ really \ _ dead ( when we think of a person as dead ? ) 2 .
Why would you trust \ _ any \ _ doctor on such a thing ? So ,there are two main opinions in Judaism : 1 .
The moment of death is the brain death , \ _ but \ _ to make sure that person is really dead       there is a need of more then just one doctor to decide .Let say we need two doctors to say       that and one \ _ none \ _ doctor to see that the two other guys are not going to just kill somebody       for money .
      There is a law in preparing actually in Isarel that makes all this to happen.2 .
The moment of death is the moment of heart actually stopping .
        This is \ _ against \ _ of current science ,however I would not trust a science for this , science changes.Note however that if an organ was \ _ already \ _ taken than the person is already dead anyway and thusthe " receiving an organ is OK under religious law " .Just trying to clear thing out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well,the \_ donation \_ is not a problem .The problem is :When do you consider a person dead ,so you can use his organs?
In other word ,the moment of death.This is \_ not \_ a simple question to ask.The current knowledge in medicine says the moment of death is the "brain death".However this is not so simple.If there \_ is \_ a possibility of a person to be back alive after a "brain death" then taking his organs ispratically killing him ,right?This "moment of death" is the real Judaism problem .While doctors say it is OK to take your organs ,how do you make sure of two things:1.
The person is \_ really \_ dead (when we think of a person as dead?)2.
Why would you trust \_ any \_ doctor on such a thing?So ,there are two main opinions in Judaism:1.
The moment of death is the brain death ,\_ but \_ to make sure that person is really dead
      there is a need of more then just one doctor to decide .Let say we need two doctors to say
      that and one \_ none \_ doctor to see that the two other guys are not going to just kill somebody
      for money.
      There is a law in preparing actually in Isarel that makes all this to happen.2.
The moment of death is the moment of heart actually stopping.
        This is \_ against \_ of current science ,however I would not trust a science  for this, science changes.Note however that if an organ was \_ already \_ taken than the person is already dead anyway and thusthe "receiving an organ is OK under religious law".Just trying to clear thing out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480196</id>
	<title>Re:Religious bullcrap is commonplace here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268656200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Switch to a ham &amp; cheese sandwich for the pesach period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Switch to a ham &amp; cheese sandwich for the pesach period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Switch to a ham &amp; cheese sandwich for the pesach period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478830</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they want a sinner's organs anyway?</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1268684460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone goes to heaven, but there's no reason it has to be sooner rather than later. God can wait the extra few decades before re-making your acquaintance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone goes to heaven , but there 's no reason it has to be sooner rather than later .
God can wait the extra few decades before re-making your acquaintance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone goes to heaven, but there's no reason it has to be sooner rather than later.
God can wait the extra few decades before re-making your acquaintance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485046</id>
	<title>Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268680740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Scantily clad hipster cyclists attracted to the Brooklyn neighborhood made it difficult, the Hasids said, to obey religious laws forbidding them from staring at members of the opposite sex in various states of undress. These riders also were disobeying the traffic laws, they complained. "</p><p>Removing safety devices from the street in order to subject others to your ridiculous religious ideas is just that, ridiculous. If you have a retarded law about not looking at people with fewer clothes than you, then maybe you need a little self control.</p><p>Forcing others to change their behavior so you can feel good about yourself is fucking retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Scantily clad hipster cyclists attracted to the Brooklyn neighborhood made it difficult , the Hasids said , to obey religious laws forbidding them from staring at members of the opposite sex in various states of undress .
These riders also were disobeying the traffic laws , they complained .
" Removing safety devices from the street in order to subject others to your ridiculous religious ideas is just that , ridiculous .
If you have a retarded law about not looking at people with fewer clothes than you , then maybe you need a little self control.Forcing others to change their behavior so you can feel good about yourself is fucking retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Scantily clad hipster cyclists attracted to the Brooklyn neighborhood made it difficult, the Hasids said, to obey religious laws forbidding them from staring at members of the opposite sex in various states of undress.
These riders also were disobeying the traffic laws, they complained.
"Removing safety devices from the street in order to subject others to your ridiculous religious ideas is just that, ridiculous.
If you have a retarded law about not looking at people with fewer clothes than you, then maybe you need a little self control.Forcing others to change their behavior so you can feel good about yourself is fucking retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479308</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1268647140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Belgium has an opt-out. This results in sometimes people moarning in front of empty graves or people not knowing that their loved ones are cut to pieces. Also next of kin deciding not to do it, even though that is against the law.</p><p>The advantage is that there is an opt-out law. The disadvantage is that many people are not aware of it and it is seldom discussed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Belgium has an opt-out .
This results in sometimes people moarning in front of empty graves or people not knowing that their loved ones are cut to pieces .
Also next of kin deciding not to do it , even though that is against the law.The advantage is that there is an opt-out law .
The disadvantage is that many people are not aware of it and it is seldom discussed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Belgium has an opt-out.
This results in sometimes people moarning in front of empty graves or people not knowing that their loved ones are cut to pieces.
Also next of kin deciding not to do it, even though that is against the law.The advantage is that there is an opt-out law.
The disadvantage is that many people are not aware of it and it is seldom discussed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478958</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can understand having religious convictions not to be a donor but the default ought to be "your organs are up for grabs"</i> </p><p>Not on an unrestricted basis. A lot of people become donors with the intent of helping others. But many of the donated parts are sold for damned good prices through middlemen.</p><p>I don't care if they scrap me out, but not to aggrandize some ghoulish bastard out to make money off me.</p><p>Personally I also have qualms about the general attitude of the entire medical profession about donations, either blood or organs. The entire medical chain makes billions off of donations. Yet they constantly fight any laws compensating donors, with the possible exception of strictly compensatory living and medical expenses for surrogate mothers. "How dare any lowlife feed at our table, even the scraps" seems to be the attitude.</p><p>Yet these same munificent people will also fight tooth and nail to lay claim to the benefits of any discovery made from the unique biology of some patients. Consider the case, recently documented on PBS, of a cancer therapy derived from unique cells they took from an indigent black woman.</p><p>While you're at it. think of the medicines derived by investigating the age-old herbal knowledge of primitive peoples. Go to the areas where they live, extract their healing knowledge, then return to the labs and derive a patentable medicine with no compensation of any kind to the people who were the source of the life-giving knowledge.</p><p>Buncha fucking leeches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand having religious convictions not to be a donor but the default ought to be " your organs are up for grabs " Not on an unrestricted basis .
A lot of people become donors with the intent of helping others .
But many of the donated parts are sold for damned good prices through middlemen.I do n't care if they scrap me out , but not to aggrandize some ghoulish bastard out to make money off me.Personally I also have qualms about the general attitude of the entire medical profession about donations , either blood or organs .
The entire medical chain makes billions off of donations .
Yet they constantly fight any laws compensating donors , with the possible exception of strictly compensatory living and medical expenses for surrogate mothers .
" How dare any lowlife feed at our table , even the scraps " seems to be the attitude.Yet these same munificent people will also fight tooth and nail to lay claim to the benefits of any discovery made from the unique biology of some patients .
Consider the case , recently documented on PBS , of a cancer therapy derived from unique cells they took from an indigent black woman.While you 're at it .
think of the medicines derived by investigating the age-old herbal knowledge of primitive peoples .
Go to the areas where they live , extract their healing knowledge , then return to the labs and derive a patentable medicine with no compensation of any kind to the people who were the source of the life-giving knowledge.Buncha fucking leeches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand having religious convictions not to be a donor but the default ought to be "your organs are up for grabs" Not on an unrestricted basis.
A lot of people become donors with the intent of helping others.
But many of the donated parts are sold for damned good prices through middlemen.I don't care if they scrap me out, but not to aggrandize some ghoulish bastard out to make money off me.Personally I also have qualms about the general attitude of the entire medical profession about donations, either blood or organs.
The entire medical chain makes billions off of donations.
Yet they constantly fight any laws compensating donors, with the possible exception of strictly compensatory living and medical expenses for surrogate mothers.
"How dare any lowlife feed at our table, even the scraps" seems to be the attitude.Yet these same munificent people will also fight tooth and nail to lay claim to the benefits of any discovery made from the unique biology of some patients.
Consider the case, recently documented on PBS, of a cancer therapy derived from unique cells they took from an indigent black woman.While you're at it.
think of the medicines derived by investigating the age-old herbal knowledge of primitive peoples.
Go to the areas where they live, extract their healing knowledge, then return to the labs and derive a patentable medicine with no compensation of any kind to the people who were the source of the life-giving knowledge.Buncha fucking leeches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479216</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>Tromad</author>
	<datestamp>1268645820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, in your example a tepid bath could reduce the fever, so there aren't zero options, but you are correct it is far better to also prescribe real fever reducers such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen, they are cheap, relatively low side effects, and they work. Sometimes you can convince the crazy people to take willow bark, which is the basis for aspirin; especially the religious because there are bible quotes that back this. However, willow bark takes much longer to take effect so it just makes more sense to use OTC fever reducers. Note none of this is medical advice, I'm just arguing about your example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in your example a tepid bath could reduce the fever , so there are n't zero options , but you are correct it is far better to also prescribe real fever reducers such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen , they are cheap , relatively low side effects , and they work .
Sometimes you can convince the crazy people to take willow bark , which is the basis for aspirin ; especially the religious because there are bible quotes that back this .
However , willow bark takes much longer to take effect so it just makes more sense to use OTC fever reducers .
Note none of this is medical advice , I 'm just arguing about your example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in your example a tepid bath could reduce the fever, so there aren't zero options, but you are correct it is far better to also prescribe real fever reducers such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen, they are cheap, relatively low side effects, and they work.
Sometimes you can convince the crazy people to take willow bark, which is the basis for aspirin; especially the religious because there are bible quotes that back this.
However, willow bark takes much longer to take effect so it just makes more sense to use OTC fever reducers.
Note none of this is medical advice, I'm just arguing about your example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479666</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they want a sinner's organs anyway?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1268650680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's hardly a Troll. Attacks on religion are as legitimate as attacks on any other superstition.</p><p>Pointing out ridiculous religionist behaviors isn't trolling, and religion obviously deserves no respect.</p><p>Just because Jews got killed and the survivors milked it for money to kill and oppress Muslim Arabs doesn't make them worthy of respect for other than their military prowess. I respect the military prowess of the Waffen SS too, (gotta throw in some Godwin!) but I don't share their ideology...</p><p>Israel is only supported by Christian fanatics in the US. US Jews, most of who are NOT Zionist, (and proved it by voting about 78-percent for "Muslim" Obama) mostly don't support Zionism or Orthodox Judaism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's hardly a Troll .
Attacks on religion are as legitimate as attacks on any other superstition.Pointing out ridiculous religionist behaviors is n't trolling , and religion obviously deserves no respect.Just because Jews got killed and the survivors milked it for money to kill and oppress Muslim Arabs does n't make them worthy of respect for other than their military prowess .
I respect the military prowess of the Waffen SS too , ( got ta throw in some Godwin !
) but I do n't share their ideology...Israel is only supported by Christian fanatics in the US .
US Jews , most of who are NOT Zionist , ( and proved it by voting about 78-percent for " Muslim " Obama ) mostly do n't support Zionism or Orthodox Judaism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's hardly a Troll.
Attacks on religion are as legitimate as attacks on any other superstition.Pointing out ridiculous religionist behaviors isn't trolling, and religion obviously deserves no respect.Just because Jews got killed and the survivors milked it for money to kill and oppress Muslim Arabs doesn't make them worthy of respect for other than their military prowess.
I respect the military prowess of the Waffen SS too, (gotta throw in some Godwin!
) but I don't share their ideology...Israel is only supported by Christian fanatics in the US.
US Jews, most of who are NOT Zionist, (and proved it by voting about 78-percent for "Muslim" Obama) mostly don't support Zionism or Orthodox Judaism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479120</id>
	<title>Re:I'm a donor. Are you?</title>
	<author>dziman</author>
	<datestamp>1268644680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not being an organ donor does not make you a douche bag. People may have valid reasons for choosing not to be a donor. Some of those are religious or ethical, others might be medical.</p><p>Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has a communicable disease and that disease would come to you from a donated organ?</p><p>Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has not taken good care of that organ in their body?</p><p>The organ you receive could actually kill you if your body outright rejects it without appropriate post operative medical care. Should we give organs to people that mark themselves donors, but are unlikely to obtain reasonable post operative medical care?</p><p>Some people may be better donors than others! Would they re-prioritize organs to people that are more likely to be better organ donors than people that are not as good organ donors? For example, lets say that I'm fairly healthy except for this kidney I have that won't work. Would I get the kidney before a person that is less healthy than myself? Which types of organs are more desirable? Age matched? Younger? Older? Larger? Smaller? Is there a grading scale for organ donor-ability?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not being an organ donor does not make you a douche bag .
People may have valid reasons for choosing not to be a donor .
Some of those are religious or ethical , others might be medical.Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has a communicable disease and that disease would come to you from a donated organ ? Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has not taken good care of that organ in their body ? The organ you receive could actually kill you if your body outright rejects it without appropriate post operative medical care .
Should we give organs to people that mark themselves donors , but are unlikely to obtain reasonable post operative medical care ? Some people may be better donors than others !
Would they re-prioritize organs to people that are more likely to be better organ donors than people that are not as good organ donors ?
For example , lets say that I 'm fairly healthy except for this kidney I have that wo n't work .
Would I get the kidney before a person that is less healthy than myself ?
Which types of organs are more desirable ?
Age matched ?
Younger ? Older ?
Larger ? Smaller ?
Is there a grading scale for organ donor-ability ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not being an organ donor does not make you a douche bag.
People may have valid reasons for choosing not to be a donor.
Some of those are religious or ethical, others might be medical.Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has a communicable disease and that disease would come to you from a donated organ?Would you want to accept an organ from a person that has not taken good care of that organ in their body?The organ you receive could actually kill you if your body outright rejects it without appropriate post operative medical care.
Should we give organs to people that mark themselves donors, but are unlikely to obtain reasonable post operative medical care?Some people may be better donors than others!
Would they re-prioritize organs to people that are more likely to be better organ donors than people that are not as good organ donors?
For example, lets say that I'm fairly healthy except for this kidney I have that won't work.
Would I get the kidney before a person that is less healthy than myself?
Which types of organs are more desirable?
Age matched?
Younger? Older?
Larger? Smaller?
Is there a grading scale for organ donor-ability?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478688</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>Kierthos</author>
	<datestamp>1268595660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you watch TV or the movies? Something like 90\% of doctors* are unscrupulous bastards who would happily sell your organs to rich people who need new kidneys/hearts/lungs/corneas/whatever. If you had to opt-out, how many more victims would these butchers have their pick of?</p><p>*at least, the doctors in said TV shows and movies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you watch TV or the movies ?
Something like 90 \ % of doctors * are unscrupulous bastards who would happily sell your organs to rich people who need new kidneys/hearts/lungs/corneas/whatever .
If you had to opt-out , how many more victims would these butchers have their pick of ?
* at least , the doctors in said TV shows and movies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you watch TV or the movies?
Something like 90\% of doctors* are unscrupulous bastards who would happily sell your organs to rich people who need new kidneys/hearts/lungs/corneas/whatever.
If you had to opt-out, how many more victims would these butchers have their pick of?
*at least, the doctors in said TV shows and movies</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485656</id>
	<title>Re:Help, help, I'm being oppressed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268683200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In Israel, where I presume there are no bike lanes</p></div><p>lmgtfu... wait... <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEngPE.jhtml?itemNo=969950" title="haaretz.com" rel="nofollow">The [Israeli] government will allocate some NIS 145 million [40 million $] by 2013 for developing bicycle lanes in urban as well as undeveloped areas across the country.</a> [haaretz.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Israel , where I presume there are no bike laneslmgtfu... wait... The [ Israeli ] government will allocate some NIS 145 million [ 40 million $ ] by 2013 for developing bicycle lanes in urban as well as undeveloped areas across the country .
[ haaretz.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Israel, where I presume there are no bike laneslmgtfu... wait... The [Israeli] government will allocate some NIS 145 million [40 million $] by 2013 for developing bicycle lanes in urban as well as undeveloped areas across the country.
[haaretz.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479042</id>
	<title>Re:Orthodox rabbis?</title>
	<author>tsirkin</author>
	<datestamp>1268643960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well,the \_ donation \_ is not a problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.The problem is :<br>When do you consider a person dead<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,so you can use his organs?<br>This is \_ not \_ a simple question to ask.<br>The current knowledge in medicine says the moment of death is the "brain death".<br>However this is not so simple.<br>If there \_ is \_ a possibility of a person to be back alive after a "brain death" then taking his organs is<br>pratically killing him<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,right?<br>This "moment of death" is the real Judaism problem .<br>While doctors say it is OK to take your organs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,how do you make sure of two things:<br>1. The person is \_ really \_ dead (when we think of a person as dead?)<br>2. Why would you trust \_ any \_ doctor on such a thing?<br>So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,there are two main opinions in Judaism:<br>1. The moment of death is the brain death<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,\_ but \_ to make sure that person is really dead<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; there is a need of more then just one doctor to decide<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Let say we need two doctors to say<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; that and one \_ none \_ doctor to see that the two other guys are not going to just kill somebody<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; for money.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There is a law in preparing actually in Isarel that makes all this to happen.</p><p>2. The moment of death is the moment of heart actually stopping.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This is \_ against \_ of current science<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,however I would not trust a science  for this, science changes.</p><p>Note however that if an organ was \_ already \_ taken than the person is already dead anyway and thus<br>the "receiving an organ is OK under religious law".<br>Just trying to clear thing out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well,the \ _ donation \ _ is not a problem .The problem is : When do you consider a person dead ,so you can use his organs ? This is \ _ not \ _ a simple question to ask.The current knowledge in medicine says the moment of death is the " brain death " .However this is not so simple.If there \ _ is \ _ a possibility of a person to be back alive after a " brain death " then taking his organs ispratically killing him ,right ? This " moment of death " is the real Judaism problem .While doctors say it is OK to take your organs ,how do you make sure of two things : 1 .
The person is \ _ really \ _ dead ( when we think of a person as dead ? ) 2 .
Why would you trust \ _ any \ _ doctor on such a thing ? So ,there are two main opinions in Judaism : 1 .
The moment of death is the brain death , \ _ but \ _ to make sure that person is really dead       there is a need of more then just one doctor to decide .Let say we need two doctors to say       that and one \ _ none \ _ doctor to see that the two other guys are not going to just kill somebody       for money .
      There is a law in preparing actually in Isarel that makes all this to happen.2 .
The moment of death is the moment of heart actually stopping .
        This is \ _ against \ _ of current science ,however I would not trust a science for this , science changes.Note however that if an organ was \ _ already \ _ taken than the person is already dead anyway and thusthe " receiving an organ is OK under religious law " .Just trying to clear thing out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well,the \_ donation \_ is not a problem .The problem is :When do you consider a person dead ,so you can use his organs?This is \_ not \_ a simple question to ask.The current knowledge in medicine says the moment of death is the "brain death".However this is not so simple.If there \_ is \_ a possibility of a person to be back alive after a "brain death" then taking his organs ispratically killing him ,right?This "moment of death" is the real Judaism problem .While doctors say it is OK to take your organs ,how do you make sure of two things:1.
The person is \_ really \_ dead (when we think of a person as dead?)2.
Why would you trust \_ any \_ doctor on such a thing?So ,there are two main opinions in Judaism:1.
The moment of death is the brain death ,\_ but \_ to make sure that person is really dead
      there is a need of more then just one doctor to decide .Let say we need two doctors to say
      that and one \_ none \_ doctor to see that the two other guys are not going to just kill somebody
      for money.
      There is a law in preparing actually in Isarel that makes all this to happen.2.
The moment of death is the moment of heart actually stopping.
        This is \_ against \_ of current science ,however I would not trust a science  for this, science changes.Note however that if an organ was \_ already \_ taken than the person is already dead anyway and thusthe "receiving an organ is OK under religious law".Just trying to clear thing out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479144</id>
	<title>Re:Religious bullcrap is commonplace here</title>
	<author>deathbird</author>
	<datestamp>1268645100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kosher is HAAAARRRDDD.
Try matzo or a wrap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kosher is HAAAARRRDDD .
Try matzo or a wrap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kosher is HAAAARRRDDD.
Try matzo or a wrap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602</id>
	<title>Why would they want a sinner's organs anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268594280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's apparent their time is out, why are the orthodox trying to subvert god's will?  Don't they want to go to heaven?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's apparent their time is out , why are the orthodox trying to subvert god 's will ?
Do n't they want to go to heaven ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's apparent their time is out, why are the orthodox trying to subvert god's will?
Don't they want to go to heaven?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484118</id>
	<title>Re:crazy hypocrites</title>
	<author>yariv</author>
	<datestamp>1268677440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That position sounds so insane, that I thought that there must be more to it than that...</p></div><p>You were right. Those that claim they can't contribute organs due to religious beliefs mean they can't contribute organs before cardiac death, and from what I understand (I'm not a MD) it it usually impossible to use the organs after cardiac death, and they are taken after brain death. What Elyashiv opposes is causing cardiac death to those who suffered brain death, claiming this would be murder. In general, the religious Jewish law is that preservation of life overrides everything (almost everything, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sacrifice\_in\_Jewish\_law" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [wikipedia.org]).

I'm not claiming Elyashiv's point is reasonable, but it is not that unreasonable....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That position sounds so insane , that I thought that there must be more to it than that...You were right .
Those that claim they ca n't contribute organs due to religious beliefs mean they ca n't contribute organs before cardiac death , and from what I understand ( I 'm not a MD ) it it usually impossible to use the organs after cardiac death , and they are taken after brain death .
What Elyashiv opposes is causing cardiac death to those who suffered brain death , claiming this would be murder .
In general , the religious Jewish law is that preservation of life overrides everything ( almost everything , see this [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
I 'm not claiming Elyashiv 's point is reasonable , but it is not that unreasonable... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That position sounds so insane, that I thought that there must be more to it than that...You were right.
Those that claim they can't contribute organs due to religious beliefs mean they can't contribute organs before cardiac death, and from what I understand (I'm not a MD) it it usually impossible to use the organs after cardiac death, and they are taken after brain death.
What Elyashiv opposes is causing cardiac death to those who suffered brain death, claiming this would be murder.
In general, the religious Jewish law is that preservation of life overrides everything (almost everything, see this [wikipedia.org]).
I'm not claiming Elyashiv's point is reasonable, but it is not that unreasonable....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480544</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268659740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It makes sense to reward altruism in society and this certainly fits the bill.</p></div><p>It's by definition not altruism if there is a reward or expectation thereof. Not that I disagree with this principle, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes sense to reward altruism in society and this certainly fits the bill.It 's by definition not altruism if there is a reward or expectation thereof .
Not that I disagree with this principle , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes sense to reward altruism in society and this certainly fits the bill.It's by definition not altruism if there is a reward or expectation thereof.
Not that I disagree with this principle, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478964</id>
	<title>Re:Orthodox rabbis?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh.....this is a classic slashdot comment.  You wanted to know the answer, weren't afraid of the effort necessary to find it on the internet, and STILL weren't willing to read the article.  Here's the answer  FTA:<p><div class="quote"><p>Yosef Sholom Elyashiv takes a different view, and he is one of ultra-Orthodox Jewry's most influential leaders, claiming 100,000 followers among Israel's 6 million Jews. Elyashiv forbids organ donation before cardiac death, but allows his followers to receive lifesaving donations....<br> <br>Most leading Orthodox rabbis -- as well as Israeli law -- agree that a person dies when his brain-stem stops functioning. A minority opinion, endorsed by Elyashiv, holds that as long as a person's heart beats he or she is alive and therefore the organs cannot be harvested. Donation in Israel after cardiac death is rare and only done in special circumstances.</p></div><p>If I were into crafts and Slashdot paraphernalia I would print your comment and frame it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh.....this is a classic slashdot comment .
You wanted to know the answer , were n't afraid of the effort necessary to find it on the internet , and STILL were n't willing to read the article .
Here 's the answer FTA : Yosef Sholom Elyashiv takes a different view , and he is one of ultra-Orthodox Jewry 's most influential leaders , claiming 100,000 followers among Israel 's 6 million Jews .
Elyashiv forbids organ donation before cardiac death , but allows his followers to receive lifesaving donations.... Most leading Orthodox rabbis -- as well as Israeli law -- agree that a person dies when his brain-stem stops functioning .
A minority opinion , endorsed by Elyashiv , holds that as long as a person 's heart beats he or she is alive and therefore the organs can not be harvested .
Donation in Israel after cardiac death is rare and only done in special circumstances.If I were into crafts and Slashdot paraphernalia I would print your comment and frame it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh.....this is a classic slashdot comment.
You wanted to know the answer, weren't afraid of the effort necessary to find it on the internet, and STILL weren't willing to read the article.
Here's the answer  FTA:Yosef Sholom Elyashiv takes a different view, and he is one of ultra-Orthodox Jewry's most influential leaders, claiming 100,000 followers among Israel's 6 million Jews.
Elyashiv forbids organ donation before cardiac death, but allows his followers to receive lifesaving donations.... Most leading Orthodox rabbis -- as well as Israeli law -- agree that a person dies when his brain-stem stops functioning.
A minority opinion, endorsed by Elyashiv, holds that as long as a person's heart beats he or she is alive and therefore the organs cannot be harvested.
Donation in Israel after cardiac death is rare and only done in special circumstances.If I were into crafts and Slashdot paraphernalia I would print your comment and frame it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479422</id>
	<title>Re:Opt-out</title>
	<author>aussie\_a</author>
	<datestamp>1268648160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Organ donation is a relatively new concept. The first successful kidney transplant was in the 1950s (with everything before then a bit touch and go) and only worked because it involved identical twins.</p><p>I do think that with such changes it is important to give society to come to understand and accept these changes and advances. America is currently up in arms over socialised medical insurance that is opt-out. It seems a bit unreasonable IMO to expect the same people to accept opt-out organ transplants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Organ donation is a relatively new concept .
The first successful kidney transplant was in the 1950s ( with everything before then a bit touch and go ) and only worked because it involved identical twins.I do think that with such changes it is important to give society to come to understand and accept these changes and advances .
America is currently up in arms over socialised medical insurance that is opt-out .
It seems a bit unreasonable IMO to expect the same people to accept opt-out organ transplants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Organ donation is a relatively new concept.
The first successful kidney transplant was in the 1950s (with everything before then a bit touch and go) and only worked because it involved identical twins.I do think that with such changes it is important to give society to come to understand and accept these changes and advances.
America is currently up in arms over socialised medical insurance that is opt-out.
It seems a bit unreasonable IMO to expect the same people to accept opt-out organ transplants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479300</id>
	<title>Re:Never even thought about it</title>
	<author>JustOK</author>
	<datestamp>1268647020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you're not an organ donor YET.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're not an organ donor YET .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're not an organ donor YET.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31486070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31483042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31483822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_0042240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31486070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31483042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31483822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31481158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_0042240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31480544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478858
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31485328
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484164
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479292
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482212
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31479820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31484274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31482018
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31489856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_0042240.31478842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
