<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_30_1741224</id>
	<title>Magnetism Can Sway Man's Moral Compass</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1269975600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Discovery News reports that scientists have identified a region of the brain which appears to control morality and discovered that <a href="http://news.discovery.com/tech/magnet-brain-morality.html">a powerful magnetic field can scramble the moral center of the brain</a>, impairing volunteers' notion of right and wrong. 'You think of morality as being a really high-level behavior,' says Liane Young, a scientist at MIT and co-author of the article. 'To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and <a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/moral-control-0330.html">change people's moral judgments</a> is really astonishing.' Young and her colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging to locate an area of the brain just above and behind the right ear known as the right temporo-parietal junction (RTPJ), which other studies had previously related to moral judgments. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8593748.stm">Volunteers were exposed to transcranial magnetic stimulation</a> (TMS) for 25 minutes before reading stories involving morally questionable characters, and being asked to judge their actions. The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm &mdash; not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.  The scientists didn't permanently remove the subjects' moral sensibilities and on the scientists' seven point scale, the difference was about one point, averaging out to about a 15 percent change, 'but it's still striking to see such a change in such high level behavior as moral decision-making.' Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality, and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Discovery News reports that scientists have identified a region of the brain which appears to control morality and discovered that a powerful magnetic field can scramble the moral center of the brain , impairing volunteers ' notion of right and wrong .
'You think of morality as being a really high-level behavior, ' says Liane Young , a scientist at MIT and co-author of the article .
'To be able to apply ( a magnetic field ) to a specific brain region and change people 's moral judgments is really astonishing .
' Young and her colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging to locate an area of the brain just above and behind the right ear known as the right temporo-parietal junction ( RTPJ ) , which other studies had previously related to moral judgments .
Volunteers were exposed to transcranial magnetic stimulation ( TMS ) for 25 minutes before reading stories involving morally questionable characters , and being asked to judge their actions .
The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm    not whether they were morally wrong in themselves .
The scientists did n't permanently remove the subjects ' moral sensibilities and on the scientists ' seven point scale , the difference was about one point , averaging out to about a 15 percent change , 'but it 's still striking to see such a change in such high level behavior as moral decision-making .
' Young points out that the study was correlation ; their work only links the RTJP , morality , and magnetic fields , but does n't definitively prove that one causes another .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Discovery News reports that scientists have identified a region of the brain which appears to control morality and discovered that a powerful magnetic field can scramble the moral center of the brain, impairing volunteers' notion of right and wrong.
'You think of morality as being a really high-level behavior,' says Liane Young, a scientist at MIT and co-author of the article.
'To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and change people's moral judgments is really astonishing.
' Young and her colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging to locate an area of the brain just above and behind the right ear known as the right temporo-parietal junction (RTPJ), which other studies had previously related to moral judgments.
Volunteers were exposed to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for 25 minutes before reading stories involving morally questionable characters, and being asked to judge their actions.
The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.
The scientists didn't permanently remove the subjects' moral sensibilities and on the scientists' seven point scale, the difference was about one point, averaging out to about a 15 percent change, 'but it's still striking to see such a change in such high level behavior as moral decision-making.
' Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality, and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677050</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>freeweed</author>
	<datestamp>1269941760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.</i></p><p>Back to your earlier point - quite frankly, adultery, if the other party never finds out. No one's harmed here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm.Back to your earlier point - quite frankly , adultery , if the other party never finds out .
No one 's harmed here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.Back to your earlier point - quite frankly, adultery, if the other party never finds out.
No one's harmed here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683188</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1269973260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One's attitude towards the law/authority is probably a moral judgement itself however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One 's attitude towards the law/authority is probably a moral judgement itself however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One's attitude towards the law/authority is probably a moral judgement itself however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675824</id>
	<title>cause and reson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269981120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the end of the article:<br>
&nbsp; "Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another."</p><p>I can confirm that i never have experienced that, when doing moral judgement, suddenly a magnetic field is applied just behind and above my ear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the end of the article :   " Young points out that the study was correlation ; their work only links the RTJP , morality and magnetic fields , but does n't definitively prove that one causes another .
" I can confirm that i never have experienced that , when doing moral judgement , suddenly a magnetic field is applied just behind and above my ear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the end of the article:
  "Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another.
"I can confirm that i never have experienced that, when doing moral judgement, suddenly a magnetic field is applied just behind and above my ear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677536</id>
	<title>We already know...</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1269943380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We already know that a litany of things can affect a person's moral judgment, including:<ul> <li>lack of sleep,</li><li>other causes of fatigue</li><li>excessive stress</li><li>excessive alcohol consumption,</li><li>narcotics/other controlled substances,</li><li>chemical imbalances in the brain, and</li> <li> temporarily induced changes in body chemistry (i.e., being near a really hot guy/gal).</li></ul><p>[That last one is only partly tongue-in cheek.]<br> <br> Why should we be surprised that magnetic fields can do the same thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already know that a litany of things can affect a person 's moral judgment , including : lack of sleep,other causes of fatigueexcessive stressexcessive alcohol consumption,narcotics/other controlled substances,chemical imbalances in the brain , and temporarily induced changes in body chemistry ( i.e. , being near a really hot guy/gal ) .
[ That last one is only partly tongue-in cheek .
] Why should we be surprised that magnetic fields can do the same thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already know that a litany of things can affect a person's moral judgment, including: lack of sleep,other causes of fatigueexcessive stressexcessive alcohol consumption,narcotics/other controlled substances,chemical imbalances in the brain, and  temporarily induced changes in body chemistry (i.e., being near a really hot guy/gal).
[That last one is only partly tongue-in cheek.
]  Why should we be surprised that magnetic fields can do the same thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675744</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1269980880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe, even if she ends up making it across safely. In such cases, a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless, even though it appears he intended to do harm.</p></div><p>Tripe like this, apparently.</p><p>I'm beginning to wonder whether we should let these researchers continue their morally ambiguous research.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe , even if she ends up making it across safely .
In such cases , a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless , even though it appears he intended to do harm.Tripe like this , apparently.I 'm beginning to wonder whether we should let these researchers continue their morally ambiguous research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe, even if she ends up making it across safely.
In such cases, a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless, even though it appears he intended to do harm.Tripe like this, apparently.I'm beginning to wonder whether we should let these researchers continue their morally ambiguous research.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676068</id>
	<title>Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the</title>
	<author>jwietelmann</author>
	<datestamp>1269982080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, earth's magnetic field is stronger the closer you get to the poles.  So, according to this, Texans are morally superior to Canadians.  That Canadians tend to be liberal, and Texans conservative, would seem to imply that conservatism is the morally superior ideology.
<br> <br>
<em>WARNING:  Above statements are intended for humor and satire only, and do not intend to make any actual political statements about anything.  Individuals having an axe to grind, and lacking a sense of humor, should take proper precautions by navigating to either FoxNews.com or the Huffington Post, where they can discuss politics as emotionally and obnoxiously as they wish.</em></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , earth 's magnetic field is stronger the closer you get to the poles .
So , according to this , Texans are morally superior to Canadians .
That Canadians tend to be liberal , and Texans conservative , would seem to imply that conservatism is the morally superior ideology .
WARNING : Above statements are intended for humor and satire only , and do not intend to make any actual political statements about anything .
Individuals having an axe to grind , and lacking a sense of humor , should take proper precautions by navigating to either FoxNews.com or the Huffington Post , where they can discuss politics as emotionally and obnoxiously as they wish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, earth's magnetic field is stronger the closer you get to the poles.
So, according to this, Texans are morally superior to Canadians.
That Canadians tend to be liberal, and Texans conservative, would seem to imply that conservatism is the morally superior ideology.
WARNING:  Above statements are intended for humor and satire only, and do not intend to make any actual political statements about anything.
Individuals having an axe to grind, and lacking a sense of humor, should take proper precautions by navigating to either FoxNews.com or the Huffington Post, where they can discuss politics as emotionally and obnoxiously as they wish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675820</id>
	<title>Re:Morality?</title>
	<author>gibson042</author>
	<datestamp>1269981120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the researchers believe that TMS interfered with subjects&rsquo; ability to interpret others&rsquo; intentions, forcing them to rely more on outcome information to make their judgments</p></div></blockquote><p>Unless you believe that attempted (but failed) murder is morally permissible, this study is still relevant to you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the researchers believe that TMS interfered with subjects    ability to interpret others    intentions , forcing them to rely more on outcome information to make their judgmentsUnless you believe that attempted ( but failed ) murder is morally permissible , this study is still relevant to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the researchers believe that TMS interfered with subjects’ ability to interpret others’ intentions, forcing them to rely more on outcome information to make their judgmentsUnless you believe that attempted (but failed) murder is morally permissible, this study is still relevant to you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675582</id>
	<title>friSt p5ot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>butts are exposed said one FreeBSD despite the Creek, abysmal for trolls' and exec,utes a it.  Do not share project faces a set</htmltext>
<tokenext>butts are exposed said one FreeBSD despite the Creek , abysmal for trolls ' and exec,utes a it .
Do not share project faces a set</tokentext>
<sentencetext>butts are exposed said one FreeBSD despite the Creek, abysmal for trolls' and exec,utes a it.
Do not share project faces a set</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31693896</id>
	<title>Re:Morality?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1270032480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you let others influence your morality just like that?<br>It isn&rsquo;t exactly your morality, when you copy someone else, is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you let others influence your morality just like that ? It isn    t exactly your morality , when you copy someone else , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you let others influence your morality just like that?It isn’t exactly your morality, when you copy someone else, is it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675672</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1269980700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No action is morally wrong (or right) in and of itself.</p><p>That is just absurd.</p><p>Actions are not, cannot be, moral nor immoral without a subjective interpretation. There simply is no objective standard of morality.</p><p>Article is a dud on morality; its human perception or consciousness which is being altered.</p><p>A human may have a subjective notion that some act is immoral 'in itself' and this subjective notion is a false representation of reality.</p><p>What this magnetic field seems to do is to restore a more accurate appraisal of reality to the human being...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No action is morally wrong ( or right ) in and of itself.That is just absurd.Actions are not , can not be , moral nor immoral without a subjective interpretation .
There simply is no objective standard of morality.Article is a dud on morality ; its human perception or consciousness which is being altered.A human may have a subjective notion that some act is immoral 'in itself ' and this subjective notion is a false representation of reality.What this magnetic field seems to do is to restore a more accurate appraisal of reality to the human being.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No action is morally wrong (or right) in and of itself.That is just absurd.Actions are not, cannot be, moral nor immoral without a subjective interpretation.
There simply is no objective standard of morality.Article is a dud on morality; its human perception or consciousness which is being altered.A human may have a subjective notion that some act is immoral 'in itself' and this subjective notion is a false representation of reality.What this magnetic field seems to do is to restore a more accurate appraisal of reality to the human being...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679888</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1269953820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It doesn't sound like a sound defense. Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality; there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example. </i></p><p>Mmmm... If can prove that you were forced to commit the crime under duress or under influence that was not of your choosing, then you usually won't be convicted.</p><p>Like assaulting someone after going under anethesiea and coming too during a panic at a hospital for example.</p><p>Actually a good anecdotal story, there was a guy at my old job who had an epileptic attack and hit a few people and cops and paramedics, they had to tackle him and hold him down and put a wallet in his mouth, but they didn't charge him because... Well... He's epileptic. Its what happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't sound like a sound defense .
Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality ; there 's nothing immoral about smoking pot , for example .
Mmmm... If can prove that you were forced to commit the crime under duress or under influence that was not of your choosing , then you usually wo n't be convicted.Like assaulting someone after going under anethesiea and coming too during a panic at a hospital for example.Actually a good anecdotal story , there was a guy at my old job who had an epileptic attack and hit a few people and cops and paramedics , they had to tackle him and hold him down and put a wallet in his mouth , but they did n't charge him because... Well... He 's epileptic .
Its what happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't sound like a sound defense.
Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality; there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example.
Mmmm... If can prove that you were forced to commit the crime under duress or under influence that was not of your choosing, then you usually won't be convicted.Like assaulting someone after going under anethesiea and coming too during a panic at a hospital for example.Actually a good anecdotal story, there was a guy at my old job who had an epileptic attack and hit a few people and cops and paramedics, they had to tackle him and hold him down and put a wallet in his mouth, but they didn't charge him because... Well... He's epileptic.
Its what happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675868</id>
	<title>That explains the movie Sunshine</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1269981360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw Sunshine last night. Danny Boyle's 2007 Sci-Fci movie about a crew that is heading to the sun to fire a nuke into it, to restart it. <br> <br>
Without spoiling any more than the preview gives away, as the ship approaches the sun the crew starts getting a little... weird. Ok, a lot weird. It's an okay movie, but the change in behavior isn't really ever explained. Maybe this is the pseudo-scientific rationale....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw Sunshine last night .
Danny Boyle 's 2007 Sci-Fci movie about a crew that is heading to the sun to fire a nuke into it , to restart it .
Without spoiling any more than the preview gives away , as the ship approaches the sun the crew starts getting a little... weird. Ok , a lot weird .
It 's an okay movie , but the change in behavior is n't really ever explained .
Maybe this is the pseudo-scientific rationale... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw Sunshine last night.
Danny Boyle's 2007 Sci-Fci movie about a crew that is heading to the sun to fire a nuke into it, to restart it.
Without spoiling any more than the preview gives away, as the ship approaches the sun the crew starts getting a little... weird. Ok, a lot weird.
It's an okay movie, but the change in behavior isn't really ever explained.
Maybe this is the pseudo-scientific rationale....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456</id>
	<title>and this is why canada is more liberal than the us</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole. the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinion</p><p>so clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservative</p><p>so i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality! and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>canada is near the north pole , while the usa is closer to the south pole .
the more south you go in the usa in fact , the more conservative the opinionso clearly north pole = liberal , south pole = conservativeso i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole , hide it in an office tower in dallas texas , and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality !
and screw up navigation compasses everywhere !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole.
the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinionso clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservativeso i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality!
and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676890</id>
	<title>We're only now learning to interpret brain signals</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1269941400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We now have electrode setups that can interpret signals from the brain to control computer inputs, it is simply a matter of time before we're able to not only read, but write.  This experiment is crude, like taking a piece of graphite and smearing it onto the right upper edge of a piece of paper.  I envision soon after we perfect the reading of the signals we'll gain enough understanding to be able to influence and write those signals as well, with a fine point pen.  Repeat offenders no more... addictions?  no more.  Reading slashdot at work?  oh boy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We now have electrode setups that can interpret signals from the brain to control computer inputs , it is simply a matter of time before we 're able to not only read , but write .
This experiment is crude , like taking a piece of graphite and smearing it onto the right upper edge of a piece of paper .
I envision soon after we perfect the reading of the signals we 'll gain enough understanding to be able to influence and write those signals as well , with a fine point pen .
Repeat offenders no more... addictions ? no more .
Reading slashdot at work ?
oh boy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We now have electrode setups that can interpret signals from the brain to control computer inputs, it is simply a matter of time before we're able to not only read, but write.
This experiment is crude, like taking a piece of graphite and smearing it onto the right upper edge of a piece of paper.
I envision soon after we perfect the reading of the signals we'll gain enough understanding to be able to influence and write those signals as well, with a fine point pen.
Repeat offenders no more... addictions?  no more.
Reading slashdot at work?
oh boy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676178</id>
	<title>Re:Morality or empathy?</title>
	<author>infinite9</author>
	<datestamp>1269982380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What it sounds like to <em>me</em> is, someone found humanity's Asperger switch.</p></div><p>(I have Asperger's Syndrome)</p><p>AS is so much more than this.  It causes 100 little problems that all add up to making your life suck. </p><p>From my own personal experience I know that people with AS have trouble reading facial expressions because they're never looking at people faces.  This is because eye contact is uncomfortable (i'd call it more like creepy, or heebee-jeebees, it still happens to me).  Because it's uncomfortable, they never learn to read it.  I've started forcing myself to look at facial expressions in an attempt to read people's eyes.  I'm slowly starting to be able to do this.</p><p>As other examples, my gait is subtly wrong.  I have a hard time identifying the source of certain emotions.  And I'm sometimes not to good at reading the positions of my arms and legs.</p><p>I think it's more than just a magnetic switch.  I think it's a biochemical problem that causes development problems that propagate throughout your life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What it sounds like to me is , someone found humanity 's Asperger switch .
( I have Asperger 's Syndrome ) AS is so much more than this .
It causes 100 little problems that all add up to making your life suck .
From my own personal experience I know that people with AS have trouble reading facial expressions because they 're never looking at people faces .
This is because eye contact is uncomfortable ( i 'd call it more like creepy , or heebee-jeebees , it still happens to me ) .
Because it 's uncomfortable , they never learn to read it .
I 've started forcing myself to look at facial expressions in an attempt to read people 's eyes .
I 'm slowly starting to be able to do this.As other examples , my gait is subtly wrong .
I have a hard time identifying the source of certain emotions .
And I 'm sometimes not to good at reading the positions of my arms and legs.I think it 's more than just a magnetic switch .
I think it 's a biochemical problem that causes development problems that propagate throughout your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What it sounds like to me is, someone found humanity's Asperger switch.
(I have Asperger's Syndrome)AS is so much more than this.
It causes 100 little problems that all add up to making your life suck.
From my own personal experience I know that people with AS have trouble reading facial expressions because they're never looking at people faces.
This is because eye contact is uncomfortable (i'd call it more like creepy, or heebee-jeebees, it still happens to me).
Because it's uncomfortable, they never learn to read it.
I've started forcing myself to look at facial expressions in an attempt to read people's eyes.
I'm slowly starting to be able to do this.As other examples, my gait is subtly wrong.
I have a hard time identifying the source of certain emotions.
And I'm sometimes not to good at reading the positions of my arms and legs.I think it's more than just a magnetic switch.
I think it's a biochemical problem that causes development problems that propagate throughout your life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676470</id>
	<title>Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269940140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your theory fails when you get to Florida.  Especially the Miami region...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your theory fails when you get to Florida .
Especially the Miami region.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your theory fails when you get to Florida.
Especially the Miami region...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675284</id>
	<title>Ooh Ohh Mr. Kotter I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269979320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take it to your nearest prison and turn it on in reverse!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take it to your nearest prison and turn it on in reverse !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take it to your nearest prison and turn it on in reverse!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675646</id>
	<title>Re:The difference?</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1269980520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes, the difference is simply luck.</p><p>You have two snipers.  Both intend to shoot blameless strangers in a parking lot.  One is very good and hits their target.  The other is inept and misses.</p><p>Are they both morally wrong?</p><p>Apparently, if I understand the assertion, folks without the magnetic manipulation would consider both "wrong".  But folks who have had the magnetic treatment would have increased odds of judging the inept sniper to be blameless, since no actually harm <em>occurred</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes , the difference is simply luck.You have two snipers .
Both intend to shoot blameless strangers in a parking lot .
One is very good and hits their target .
The other is inept and misses.Are they both morally wrong ? Apparently , if I understand the assertion , folks without the magnetic manipulation would consider both " wrong " .
But folks who have had the magnetic treatment would have increased odds of judging the inept sniper to be blameless , since no actually harm occurred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes, the difference is simply luck.You have two snipers.
Both intend to shoot blameless strangers in a parking lot.
One is very good and hits their target.
The other is inept and misses.Are they both morally wrong?Apparently, if I understand the assertion, folks without the magnetic manipulation would consider both "wrong".
But folks who have had the magnetic treatment would have increased odds of judging the inept sniper to be blameless, since no actually harm occurred.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683940</id>
	<title>Libertarianism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't sound like it's scrambled any moral compasses to me. How can something be immoral if it doesn't cause harm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't sound like it 's scrambled any moral compasses to me .
How can something be immoral if it does n't cause harm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't sound like it's scrambled any moral compasses to me.
How can something be immoral if it doesn't cause harm?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676104</id>
	<title>How do you explain Alaska then?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269982140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alaska is closer to the North Pole than a lot of the largest Canadian cities, but it certainly isn't very liberal.  And their politicians are among the most immoral around.  <a href="http://alaskawtf.com/?p=393" title="alaskawtf.com" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> [alaskawtf.com] a recent example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alaska is closer to the North Pole than a lot of the largest Canadian cities , but it certainly is n't very liberal .
And their politicians are among the most immoral around .
Here 's [ alaskawtf.com ] a recent example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alaska is closer to the North Pole than a lot of the largest Canadian cities, but it certainly isn't very liberal.
And their politicians are among the most immoral around.
Here's [alaskawtf.com] a recent example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675632</id>
	<title>Hello DARPA grant...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so in the future if military brain implants ever become common we now know a target area where there is some useless tissue that can be removed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so in the future if military brain implants ever become common we now know a target area where there is some useless tissue that can be removed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so in the future if military brain implants ever become common we now know a target area where there is some useless tissue that can be removed...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675656</id>
	<title>Not morality, superstition</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1269980580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.</p></div><p>Sounds like researchers found the seat of superstition, not morality. The volunteers judged actions on the basis of their actual consequences instead of religious mumbo jumbo. That's not just an interesting finding, it's <i>progress</i>. Maybe science has found a way to get the Pope to spend more time protecting children and less time forgiving child rapists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.Sounds like researchers found the seat of superstition , not morality .
The volunteers judged actions on the basis of their actual consequences instead of religious mumbo jumbo .
That 's not just an interesting finding , it 's progress .
Maybe science has found a way to get the Pope to spend more time protecting children and less time forgiving child rapists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.Sounds like researchers found the seat of superstition, not morality.
The volunteers judged actions on the basis of their actual consequences instead of religious mumbo jumbo.
That's not just an interesting finding, it's progress.
Maybe science has found a way to get the Pope to spend more time protecting children and less time forgiving child rapists.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677122</id>
	<title>Re:"Moral center" or just "center"?</title>
	<author>Seor Jojoba</author>
	<datestamp>1269942000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree and would mod you up if I could.  Run the same set of tests again but pinch the subject on the arm every 5 seconds.  The subjects will be a little agitated and distracted and maybe give similar results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree and would mod you up if I could .
Run the same set of tests again but pinch the subject on the arm every 5 seconds .
The subjects will be a little agitated and distracted and maybe give similar results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree and would mod you up if I could.
Run the same set of tests again but pinch the subject on the arm every 5 seconds.
The subjects will be a little agitated and distracted and maybe give similar results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679982</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1269954240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What distinction are they making between the two?</i></p><p>Easy. Morals (in the western world) does not always equate causing harm or preventing harm.</p><p>I mean, there is the issue of thou shalt not lie. I mean if you lie about something not being dangerous and someone gets hurt because of it, then that is about harm.</p><p>But lets say someone calls you up and asks you how's the weather, and you lie about it, then no one is going to usually die over that.</p><p>Also lets take a lot into consideration about gambling or say polygamy. Most people have moral offense to either, but they aren't exactly causing the deaths of people on a grand scale (or at all really).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What distinction are they making between the two ? Easy .
Morals ( in the western world ) does not always equate causing harm or preventing harm.I mean , there is the issue of thou shalt not lie .
I mean if you lie about something not being dangerous and someone gets hurt because of it , then that is about harm.But lets say someone calls you up and asks you how 's the weather , and you lie about it , then no one is going to usually die over that.Also lets take a lot into consideration about gambling or say polygamy .
Most people have moral offense to either , but they are n't exactly causing the deaths of people on a grand scale ( or at all really ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What distinction are they making between the two?Easy.
Morals (in the western world) does not always equate causing harm or preventing harm.I mean, there is the issue of thou shalt not lie.
I mean if you lie about something not being dangerous and someone gets hurt because of it, then that is about harm.But lets say someone calls you up and asks you how's the weather, and you lie about it, then no one is going to usually die over that.Also lets take a lot into consideration about gambling or say polygamy.
Most people have moral offense to either, but they aren't exactly causing the deaths of people on a grand scale (or at all really).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676512</id>
	<title>I knew it!</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1269940260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boobs are filled with ferrofluid</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boobs are filled with ferrofluid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boobs are filled with ferrofluid</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676010</id>
	<title>This is why I hate science journalism</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1269981840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the article from MIT, not the other sources. You'll notice a distinct difference. I hate to see good research get misrepresented.
<br> <br>
The non-MIT articles makes grand claims that are NOWHERE in the real research. The "journalists" makes large claims about the existence of a "moral center" of the brain. The actual study and the MIT summary gives a much more restrained and accurate description. It shows that temporary disruption of TPJ interferes with the complete normal process which draws upon many areas of the brain.
<br> <br>
Let's use a train analogy to get away from car analogies.
<br> <br>
In order for a train to go from A to B, there must be intact railing the whole way. If we alter a section of the track and derail the train, it does NOT prove that the removed section is the train transportation center of the railroad track. It is essential, but it is only part of the process.
The disruption of this area of the brain only shows that it is essential in the complete processing of moral judgement, not the center itself. I'm not talking down this research, only the journalistic representation of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the article from MIT , not the other sources .
You 'll notice a distinct difference .
I hate to see good research get misrepresented .
The non-MIT articles makes grand claims that are NOWHERE in the real research .
The " journalists " makes large claims about the existence of a " moral center " of the brain .
The actual study and the MIT summary gives a much more restrained and accurate description .
It shows that temporary disruption of TPJ interferes with the complete normal process which draws upon many areas of the brain .
Let 's use a train analogy to get away from car analogies .
In order for a train to go from A to B , there must be intact railing the whole way .
If we alter a section of the track and derail the train , it does NOT prove that the removed section is the train transportation center of the railroad track .
It is essential , but it is only part of the process .
The disruption of this area of the brain only shows that it is essential in the complete processing of moral judgement , not the center itself .
I 'm not talking down this research , only the journalistic representation of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the article from MIT, not the other sources.
You'll notice a distinct difference.
I hate to see good research get misrepresented.
The non-MIT articles makes grand claims that are NOWHERE in the real research.
The "journalists" makes large claims about the existence of a "moral center" of the brain.
The actual study and the MIT summary gives a much more restrained and accurate description.
It shows that temporary disruption of TPJ interferes with the complete normal process which draws upon many areas of the brain.
Let's use a train analogy to get away from car analogies.
In order for a train to go from A to B, there must be intact railing the whole way.
If we alter a section of the track and derail the train, it does NOT prove that the removed section is the train transportation center of the railroad track.
It is essential, but it is only part of the process.
The disruption of this area of the brain only shows that it is essential in the complete processing of moral judgement, not the center itself.
I'm not talking down this research, only the journalistic representation of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676420</id>
	<title>Re:Good news!</title>
	<author>UziBeatle</author>
	<datestamp>1269940020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Great. I had a MRI this morning. Cost 650 American<br>play dollars. I have a back problem we are looking into...</p><p>
&nbsp; So I get home pop a couple tabs of hay fever med with<br>pseudofedrin included. I had to sign for that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<br>
&nbsp; THen I popped open a fresh bottle of brandy and started sipping<br>that. Caught a nice buzz about the time I stumbled across Slashdot<br>and saw this article.</p><p>
&nbsp; It might explain the sudden urge I have to engage in slutty behavior.<br>
&nbsp; MRI + psycho active drugs. Fuck ya, I'm going on a killing spree.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; After I slut it up though.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Or, I may forgo the killing spree and just go on a forum troll run.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Fuck ya.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I got my excuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
I had a MRI this morning .
Cost 650 Americanplay dollars .
I have a back problem we are looking into.. .   So I get home pop a couple tabs of hay fever med withpseudofedrin included .
I had to sign for that . .   THen I popped open a fresh bottle of brandy and started sippingthat .
Caught a nice buzz about the time I stumbled across Slashdotand saw this article .
  It might explain the sudden urge I have to engage in slutty behavior .
  MRI + psycho active drugs .
Fuck ya , I 'm going on a killing spree .
    After I slut it up though .
    Or , I may forgo the killing spree and just go on a forum troll run .
      Fuck ya .
    I got my excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Great.
I had a MRI this morning.
Cost 650 Americanplay dollars.
I have a back problem we are looking into...
  So I get home pop a couple tabs of hay fever med withpseudofedrin included.
I had to sign for that ..
  THen I popped open a fresh bottle of brandy and started sippingthat.
Caught a nice buzz about the time I stumbled across Slashdotand saw this article.
  It might explain the sudden urge I have to engage in slutty behavior.
  MRI + psycho active drugs.
Fuck ya, I'm going on a killing spree.
    After I slut it up though.
    Or, I may forgo the killing spree and just go on a forum troll run.
      Fuck ya.
    I got my excuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683056</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269972000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's also a <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca\_saxe\_how\_brains\_make\_moral\_judgments.html" title="ted.com" rel="nofollow">TED talk</a> [ted.com] that breifly explains the distinction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also a TED talk [ ted.com ] that breifly explains the distinction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also a TED talk [ted.com] that breifly explains the distinction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675950</id>
	<title>Different Interpretation</title>
	<author>sonnejw0</author>
	<datestamp>1269981660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The right temporo-parietal lobe junction is well known as the language integration area.  The article states these people had this region of their brain, known otherwise as Wernicke's area, altered by magnetic fields, and then READ A STORY and were asked to make a moral judgment on it. This sounds a lot more like auditory processing to me, and I'll give more reason.  Individuals with an infarction in this region of the brain are classically unable to note emotional changes in individuals based on speech cues. <br> <br>It seems most likely (Occam's Razor) to me, that these individuals had their auditory association areas monkeyed with, and ended up being less able to pick-up emotional cues in the reader's voice, which have remarkable amounts of data in regard to the transmission of information. To these people in the experiment, the reader might have sounded like a drab and boring reader, and to the controls the same reading may have been filled with emotional information. These emotional cues are powerful motivators to come to a consensus opinion even among people of disparate moral backgrounds.<br> <br>I did not read any more of the article than that, it is feasible to control for some of these aspects or to use a different experimental design to confirm the hypothesis, but I would be very careful in claiming that this is some sort of moral core of the brain. It's also been shown that magnetic fields caused agitation, and agitated people are less likely to be compassionate. I suffer from relatively constant pain from migraines and some other things, and I know most people think I'm a jerk when they first encounter me, but I am just less tolerant of people complaining (I'm actually fairly empathic and empathetic, which makes it even worse to have lousy people near me).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The right temporo-parietal lobe junction is well known as the language integration area .
The article states these people had this region of their brain , known otherwise as Wernicke 's area , altered by magnetic fields , and then READ A STORY and were asked to make a moral judgment on it .
This sounds a lot more like auditory processing to me , and I 'll give more reason .
Individuals with an infarction in this region of the brain are classically unable to note emotional changes in individuals based on speech cues .
It seems most likely ( Occam 's Razor ) to me , that these individuals had their auditory association areas monkeyed with , and ended up being less able to pick-up emotional cues in the reader 's voice , which have remarkable amounts of data in regard to the transmission of information .
To these people in the experiment , the reader might have sounded like a drab and boring reader , and to the controls the same reading may have been filled with emotional information .
These emotional cues are powerful motivators to come to a consensus opinion even among people of disparate moral backgrounds .
I did not read any more of the article than that , it is feasible to control for some of these aspects or to use a different experimental design to confirm the hypothesis , but I would be very careful in claiming that this is some sort of moral core of the brain .
It 's also been shown that magnetic fields caused agitation , and agitated people are less likely to be compassionate .
I suffer from relatively constant pain from migraines and some other things , and I know most people think I 'm a jerk when they first encounter me , but I am just less tolerant of people complaining ( I 'm actually fairly empathic and empathetic , which makes it even worse to have lousy people near me ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right temporo-parietal lobe junction is well known as the language integration area.
The article states these people had this region of their brain, known otherwise as Wernicke's area, altered by magnetic fields, and then READ A STORY and were asked to make a moral judgment on it.
This sounds a lot more like auditory processing to me, and I'll give more reason.
Individuals with an infarction in this region of the brain are classically unable to note emotional changes in individuals based on speech cues.
It seems most likely (Occam's Razor) to me, that these individuals had their auditory association areas monkeyed with, and ended up being less able to pick-up emotional cues in the reader's voice, which have remarkable amounts of data in regard to the transmission of information.
To these people in the experiment, the reader might have sounded like a drab and boring reader, and to the controls the same reading may have been filled with emotional information.
These emotional cues are powerful motivators to come to a consensus opinion even among people of disparate moral backgrounds.
I did not read any more of the article than that, it is feasible to control for some of these aspects or to use a different experimental design to confirm the hypothesis, but I would be very careful in claiming that this is some sort of moral core of the brain.
It's also been shown that magnetic fields caused agitation, and agitated people are less likely to be compassionate.
I suffer from relatively constant pain from migraines and some other things, and I know most people think I'm a jerk when they first encounter me, but I am just less tolerant of people complaining (I'm actually fairly empathic and empathetic, which makes it even worse to have lousy people near me).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31687114</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1270048260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Back to your earlier point - quite frankly, adultery, if the other party never finds out. No one's harmed here.</i></p><p>That's like saying that stealing five bucks from my wallet isn't immoral as long as I don't miss it. I've been the victim of adultery, and let me tell you, there is little that is less harmful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back to your earlier point - quite frankly , adultery , if the other party never finds out .
No one 's harmed here.That 's like saying that stealing five bucks from my wallet is n't immoral as long as I do n't miss it .
I 've been the victim of adultery , and let me tell you , there is little that is less harmful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back to your earlier point - quite frankly, adultery, if the other party never finds out.
No one's harmed here.That's like saying that stealing five bucks from my wallet isn't immoral as long as I don't miss it.
I've been the victim of adultery, and let me tell you, there is little that is less harmful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677980</id>
	<title>Obvious usage in marketspeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269945300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, powerful magnets WILL be part of our new future combat helmets! 10\% more dead bad guys (tm) guranteed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , powerful magnets WILL be part of our new future combat helmets !
10 \ % more dead bad guys ( tm ) guranteed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, powerful magnets WILL be part of our new future combat helmets!
10\% more dead bad guys (tm) guranteed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676818</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269941220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.</p></div><p>You can't possibly be serious.  There are lots of examples but an easy one is driving without wearing a seatbelt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm.You ca n't possibly be serious .
There are lots of examples but an easy one is driving without wearing a seatbelt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.You can't possibly be serious.
There are lots of examples but an easy one is driving without wearing a seatbelt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679016</id>
	<title>Magneto</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sort of scientifically explains Magneto's moral decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sort of scientifically explains Magneto 's moral decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sort of scientifically explains Magneto's moral decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681986</id>
	<title>Re:Morality or empathy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269964260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not Asperger's, that's called faux Asperger's, a disease that many in silicon valley believe they are stricken with thus allowing them free reign to be assholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not Asperger 's , that 's called faux Asperger 's , a disease that many in silicon valley believe they are stricken with thus allowing them free reign to be assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not Asperger's, that's called faux Asperger's, a disease that many in silicon valley believe they are stricken with thus allowing them free reign to be assholes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31680402</id>
	<title>Morality &amp; Harm</title>
	<author>Cassander</author>
	<datestamp>1269955980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?</p></div><p>I was beginning to wonder if I had a magnet on my head because I can't think of anything morally wrong that doesn't cause harm either. Glad to know I'm not the only one that thinks this way.</p><p>I suspect religion may be the real culprit here, because that's the only place I can think of where things that cause no actual harm are called morally wrong.</p><p>On that note, did we just stumble across the area of the brain responsible for religion/magical thinking? Can many of the world's problems be solved with mandatory magnetic hats?</p><p>You also said:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Adultery is immoral (and harmful)</p></div><p>I contend that is not necessarily always the case. Open relationships can and do work. The main practical problem with adultery is the dishonesty that typically surrounds it, and that indeed causes harm, which in that case makes it immoral, but adultery doesn't necessarily have to be dishonest or harmful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm .
Did I read the wrong FA ? I was beginning to wonder if I had a magnet on my head because I ca n't think of anything morally wrong that does n't cause harm either .
Glad to know I 'm not the only one that thinks this way.I suspect religion may be the real culprit here , because that 's the only place I can think of where things that cause no actual harm are called morally wrong.On that note , did we just stumble across the area of the brain responsible for religion/magical thinking ?
Can many of the world 's problems be solved with mandatory magnetic hats ? You also said : Adultery is immoral ( and harmful ) I contend that is not necessarily always the case .
Open relationships can and do work .
The main practical problem with adultery is the dishonesty that typically surrounds it , and that indeed causes harm , which in that case makes it immoral , but adultery does n't necessarily have to be dishonest or harmful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.
Did I read the wrong FA?I was beginning to wonder if I had a magnet on my head because I can't think of anything morally wrong that doesn't cause harm either.
Glad to know I'm not the only one that thinks this way.I suspect religion may be the real culprit here, because that's the only place I can think of where things that cause no actual harm are called morally wrong.On that note, did we just stumble across the area of the brain responsible for religion/magical thinking?
Can many of the world's problems be solved with mandatory magnetic hats?You also said:Adultery is immoral (and harmful)I contend that is not necessarily always the case.
Open relationships can and do work.
The main practical problem with adultery is the dishonesty that typically surrounds it, and that indeed causes harm, which in that case makes it immoral, but adultery doesn't necessarily have to be dishonest or harmful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31690162</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270060560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for Congress to get busy passing a law banning people from holding their cell phones to their RIGHT ears with a BIG fine if they are seen doing so and a ODUBLE BIG fine if they are seen doing so while on a smoke break</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for Congress to get busy passing a law banning people from holding their cell phones to their RIGHT ears with a BIG fine if they are seen doing so and a ODUBLE BIG fine if they are seen doing so while on a smoke break</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for Congress to get busy passing a law banning people from holding their cell phones to their RIGHT ears with a BIG fine if they are seen doing so and a ODUBLE BIG fine if they are seen doing so while on a smoke break</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683242</id>
	<title>Re:Morality?</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1269973620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>What does this mean for someone like me, who lives life by my own idea of morality<br></i><br>Don't get the area of your brain above and behind your right ear near any strong oscillating magnetic fields?</p><p>I'm not sure what you're asking here.  If you're to believe the results of the experiment (which sound rather iffy) it would indicate that our brains are wired in some manner for morality.  Your brain likely isn't any different on the macro-scale, though you may not have a typical rule set that others have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does this mean for someone like me , who lives life by my own idea of moralityDo n't get the area of your brain above and behind your right ear near any strong oscillating magnetic fields ? I 'm not sure what you 're asking here .
If you 're to believe the results of the experiment ( which sound rather iffy ) it would indicate that our brains are wired in some manner for morality .
Your brain likely is n't any different on the macro-scale , though you may not have a typical rule set that others have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does this mean for someone like me, who lives life by my own idea of moralityDon't get the area of your brain above and behind your right ear near any strong oscillating magnetic fields?I'm not sure what you're asking here.
If you're to believe the results of the experiment (which sound rather iffy) it would indicate that our brains are wired in some manner for morality.
Your brain likely isn't any different on the macro-scale, though you may not have a typical rule set that others have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678216</id>
	<title>Was general reasoning impaired?</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1269946320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't find any information on one key question: was "moral reasoning" the ONLY mental process affected?  Or was cognitive ability in general impaired?</p><p>After all, if you interfere with my ability to think clearly by blasting me with loud noises, giving me mind-altering drugs, or electrocuting me every 10 seconds, I will have difficulty making complex moral decisions... but I'll also have difficulty remembering multiplication tables.</p><p>A better experiment would mix in the moral choice questions with other questions to test general memory, sensory, language, and deductive skills.  If all of *those* are similarly impaired, you haven't learned anything but "messing with the currents in peoples' brains makes it hard for them to think."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't find any information on one key question : was " moral reasoning " the ONLY mental process affected ?
Or was cognitive ability in general impaired ? After all , if you interfere with my ability to think clearly by blasting me with loud noises , giving me mind-altering drugs , or electrocuting me every 10 seconds , I will have difficulty making complex moral decisions... but I 'll also have difficulty remembering multiplication tables.A better experiment would mix in the moral choice questions with other questions to test general memory , sensory , language , and deductive skills .
If all of * those * are similarly impaired , you have n't learned anything but " messing with the currents in peoples ' brains makes it hard for them to think .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't find any information on one key question: was "moral reasoning" the ONLY mental process affected?
Or was cognitive ability in general impaired?After all, if you interfere with my ability to think clearly by blasting me with loud noises, giving me mind-altering drugs, or electrocuting me every 10 seconds, I will have difficulty making complex moral decisions... but I'll also have difficulty remembering multiplication tables.A better experiment would mix in the moral choice questions with other questions to test general memory, sensory, language, and deductive skills.
If all of *those* are similarly impaired, you haven't learned anything but "messing with the currents in peoples' brains makes it hard for them to think.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31693214</id>
	<title>Summary's misleading about the intent of the study</title>
	<author>Rarzipace</author>
	<datestamp>1270029120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary and the beginning few paragraphs of all three articles seem to be trying to draw attention with some misleading descriptions of what the experiment discovered. What they describe studying was not the ability to act morally, but to judge morality of a hypothetical scenario after the fact (i.e. with known outcomes). It might indicate the possibility of an effect on the ability to judge the morality of one's actions before performing them, but it doesn't really tell you what.

Moreover, the only portion of morality judgment it seems to affect is the consideration of intent. Essentially, they're saying people in their experiment no longer cared what an actor in their hypothetical scenarios was trying to do, but what happened. So, if you're trying to hurt someone and you fail, that's cool, but if you're trying to help someone and end up breaking their arm, that's not cool. It doesn't really have anything to do with the "inherent" moralness of an action, but only of the outcome.

So if you're saying, "My philosophy is if doesn't hurt anyone, it's cool to do", then as long as you successfully manage to never actually hurt anyone, a person affected by this alleged phenomenon would be cool with you, too. If, however, you're doing something that shouldn't hurt anyone as far as you know but, for whatever reason, ends up doing so, then they would judge it to be wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary and the beginning few paragraphs of all three articles seem to be trying to draw attention with some misleading descriptions of what the experiment discovered .
What they describe studying was not the ability to act morally , but to judge morality of a hypothetical scenario after the fact ( i.e .
with known outcomes ) .
It might indicate the possibility of an effect on the ability to judge the morality of one 's actions before performing them , but it does n't really tell you what .
Moreover , the only portion of morality judgment it seems to affect is the consideration of intent .
Essentially , they 're saying people in their experiment no longer cared what an actor in their hypothetical scenarios was trying to do , but what happened .
So , if you 're trying to hurt someone and you fail , that 's cool , but if you 're trying to help someone and end up breaking their arm , that 's not cool .
It does n't really have anything to do with the " inherent " moralness of an action , but only of the outcome .
So if you 're saying , " My philosophy is if does n't hurt anyone , it 's cool to do " , then as long as you successfully manage to never actually hurt anyone , a person affected by this alleged phenomenon would be cool with you , too .
If , however , you 're doing something that should n't hurt anyone as far as you know but , for whatever reason , ends up doing so , then they would judge it to be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary and the beginning few paragraphs of all three articles seem to be trying to draw attention with some misleading descriptions of what the experiment discovered.
What they describe studying was not the ability to act morally, but to judge morality of a hypothetical scenario after the fact (i.e.
with known outcomes).
It might indicate the possibility of an effect on the ability to judge the morality of one's actions before performing them, but it doesn't really tell you what.
Moreover, the only portion of morality judgment it seems to affect is the consideration of intent.
Essentially, they're saying people in their experiment no longer cared what an actor in their hypothetical scenarios was trying to do, but what happened.
So, if you're trying to hurt someone and you fail, that's cool, but if you're trying to help someone and end up breaking their arm, that's not cool.
It doesn't really have anything to do with the "inherent" moralness of an action, but only of the outcome.
So if you're saying, "My philosophy is if doesn't hurt anyone, it's cool to do", then as long as you successfully manage to never actually hurt anyone, a person affected by this alleged phenomenon would be cool with you, too.
If, however, you're doing something that shouldn't hurt anyone as far as you know but, for whatever reason, ends up doing so, then they would judge it to be wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677088</id>
	<title>Business Potentional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269941880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens in Vegas , Stays in Vegas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677842</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>laron</author>
	<datestamp>1269944640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?</p></div></blockquote><p>I heard about that on the radio today. One of the scenarios was something like: A wants to poison B, but uses a harmless substance by mistake. Was A's behavior immoral?<br>Apparently the test persons with he "disabled" brain part judged only the outcome (no harm done), not the intention.</p><p>[snark] Persoanlly I think it depends on whether you consider incompetence to be immoral or not [/snark]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm .
Did I read the wrong FA ? I heard about that on the radio today .
One of the scenarios was something like : A wants to poison B , but uses a harmless substance by mistake .
Was A 's behavior immoral ? Apparently the test persons with he " disabled " brain part judged only the outcome ( no harm done ) , not the intention .
[ snark ] Persoanlly I think it depends on whether you consider incompetence to be immoral or not [ /snark ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.
Did I read the wrong FA?I heard about that on the radio today.
One of the scenarios was something like: A wants to poison B, but uses a harmless substance by mistake.
Was A's behavior immoral?Apparently the test persons with he "disabled" brain part judged only the outcome (no harm done), not the intention.
[snark] Persoanlly I think it depends on whether you consider incompetence to be immoral or not [/snark]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681910</id>
	<title>Re:Morality or empathy?</title>
	<author>KlomDark</author>
	<datestamp>1269963720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh uh uh huh huh huh, he said ass burgers uh huhu huhuhuhuh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh uh uh huh huh huh , he said ass burgers uh huhu huhuhuhuh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh uh uh huh huh huh, he said ass burgers uh huhu huhuhuhuh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679682</id>
	<title>Re:Morality?</title>
	<author>patfla</author>
	<datestamp>1269952860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"as long as you bring no harm to another".  Which would imply that harming yourself, as part of whatever you want to try, is OK.  I mean, "I'm going to bear the responsibilities - right?"</p><p>Umm, I've always had a problem with this.  It assumes an atomized social existence.  My assumption is that when someone harms him or her self, they usually harming someone else as well.</p><p>If you're a husband and a father and you kill yourself in a car crash (let's say because you were drunk) you haven't harmed the family the depends on you?</p><p>Whatever happened to:</p><p>"Therefore, send not to know<br>For whom the bell tolls,<br>It tolls for thee."</p><p>So let me see - in the current dispensation we want to believe simultaneously that a) we're socially atomic and b) all beings on the planet are connected by a web of life and if you touch it at any point there's a ripple effect that spreads outwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" as long as you bring no harm to another " .
Which would imply that harming yourself , as part of whatever you want to try , is OK. I mean , " I 'm going to bear the responsibilities - right ?
" Umm , I 've always had a problem with this .
It assumes an atomized social existence .
My assumption is that when someone harms him or her self , they usually harming someone else as well.If you 're a husband and a father and you kill yourself in a car crash ( let 's say because you were drunk ) you have n't harmed the family the depends on you ? Whatever happened to : " Therefore , send not to knowFor whom the bell tolls,It tolls for thee .
" So let me see - in the current dispensation we want to believe simultaneously that a ) we 're socially atomic and b ) all beings on the planet are connected by a web of life and if you touch it at any point there 's a ripple effect that spreads outwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"as long as you bring no harm to another".
Which would imply that harming yourself, as part of whatever you want to try, is OK.  I mean, "I'm going to bear the responsibilities - right?
"Umm, I've always had a problem with this.
It assumes an atomized social existence.
My assumption is that when someone harms him or her self, they usually harming someone else as well.If you're a husband and a father and you kill yourself in a car crash (let's say because you were drunk) you haven't harmed the family the depends on you?Whatever happened to:"Therefore, send not to knowFor whom the bell tolls,It tolls for thee.
"So let me see - in the current dispensation we want to believe simultaneously that a) we're socially atomic and b) all beings on the planet are connected by a web of life and if you touch it at any point there's a ripple effect that spreads outwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675926</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>berwiki</author>
	<datestamp>1269981540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how long until the <i>Military</i> starts experimenting on this!</htmltext>
<tokenext>how long until the Military starts experimenting on this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how long until the Military starts experimenting on this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675768</id>
	<title>oblig Lost</title>
	<author>llamafirst</author>
	<datestamp>1269980940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How long until this is used as a defense in court?</p></div><p>At the very least, for the folks on the TV show <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"Lost"</a> [wikipedia.org] we could explain away their crazy behavior -- the  magnetism is outrageous there and messed with their minds!

</p><p>"THE SMOKE MONSTER TOLD ME TO DO IT AND IT JUST SEEMED *RIGHT*!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until this is used as a defense in court ? At the very least , for the folks on the TV show " Lost " [ wikipedia.org ] we could explain away their crazy behavior -- the magnetism is outrageous there and messed with their minds !
" THE SMOKE MONSTER TOLD ME TO DO IT AND IT JUST SEEMED * RIGHT * !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until this is used as a defense in court?At the very least, for the folks on the TV show "Lost" [wikipedia.org] we could explain away their crazy behavior -- the  magnetism is outrageous there and messed with their minds!
"THE SMOKE MONSTER TOLD ME TO DO IT AND IT JUST SEEMED *RIGHT*!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31680808</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1269957960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example.</p></div></blockquote><p>In your opinion.  I disagree.  (I don't drink either, and that's perfectly legal.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's nothing immoral about smoking pot , for example.In your opinion .
I disagree .
( I do n't drink either , and that 's perfectly legal .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example.In your opinion.
I disagree.
(I don't drink either, and that's perfectly legal.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675740</id>
	<title>Cash Works Too</title>
	<author>Rob Riggs</author>
	<datestamp>1269980880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have those MIT eggheads studied the effects of massive amounts of cash on the moral compass of humans?  Is the magnetic susceptibility correlated to the amount of cash required?  It would be nice to know just how much I'll need to offer going into the deal.  Probably worth a Nobel in economics, that one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have those MIT eggheads studied the effects of massive amounts of cash on the moral compass of humans ?
Is the magnetic susceptibility correlated to the amount of cash required ?
It would be nice to know just how much I 'll need to offer going into the deal .
Probably worth a Nobel in economics , that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have those MIT eggheads studied the effects of massive amounts of cash on the moral compass of humans?
Is the magnetic susceptibility correlated to the amount of cash required?
It would be nice to know just how much I'll need to offer going into the deal.
Probably worth a Nobel in economics, that one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675600</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The particular example I heard was: a person pours a cup of coffee for their friend, but puts some powder in it before serving. Here are two scenarios:</p><p>1) The person believed the powder was poison and intended to poison their friend, but it turned out to be sugar and no harm was done, or<br>2) The person believed the powder was sugar and intended no harm, but it turned out to be poison and the friend was made sick.</p><p>Many people would agree that the action in the first case is immoral, despite the fact that no harm was done, and that the action in the second case is morally innocent if unfortunate. In this experiment, they found that people subjected to the particular magnetic effect on the RTPJ would tend to consider the first case innocent as well, since nothing bad actually happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The particular example I heard was : a person pours a cup of coffee for their friend , but puts some powder in it before serving .
Here are two scenarios : 1 ) The person believed the powder was poison and intended to poison their friend , but it turned out to be sugar and no harm was done , or2 ) The person believed the powder was sugar and intended no harm , but it turned out to be poison and the friend was made sick.Many people would agree that the action in the first case is immoral , despite the fact that no harm was done , and that the action in the second case is morally innocent if unfortunate .
In this experiment , they found that people subjected to the particular magnetic effect on the RTPJ would tend to consider the first case innocent as well , since nothing bad actually happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The particular example I heard was: a person pours a cup of coffee for their friend, but puts some powder in it before serving.
Here are two scenarios:1) The person believed the powder was poison and intended to poison their friend, but it turned out to be sugar and no harm was done, or2) The person believed the powder was sugar and intended no harm, but it turned out to be poison and the friend was made sick.Many people would agree that the action in the first case is immoral, despite the fact that no harm was done, and that the action in the second case is morally innocent if unfortunate.
In this experiment, they found that people subjected to the particular magnetic effect on the RTPJ would tend to consider the first case innocent as well, since nothing bad actually happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681288</id>
	<title>Re:Morality or empathy?</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1269960360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the MIT article: "they found that the subjects' ability to make moral judgments <em>that require an understanding of other people's intentions</em>".</p><p>They don't appear to have claimed a general change to moral judgments of all types.  They're saying that people were less able to make moral judgments that involved modeling someone else's internal state.</p><p>What it sounds like to <em>me</em> is, someone found humanity's Asperger switch.</p></div><p>You are almost right. The researchers on this project (who have spoken at TED talks) mention that it is about juries, not criminals. It is how we judge other people's behaviour, not how we choose to act ourselves.</p><p>People with Asperger's syndrome typically have difficulty understanding feelings (their own and other people's), but not difficulty making moral judgments, as far as I am aware.</p><p>So not the Asperger's switch. The jury's switch, however.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the MIT article : " they found that the subjects ' ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people 's intentions " .They do n't appear to have claimed a general change to moral judgments of all types .
They 're saying that people were less able to make moral judgments that involved modeling someone else 's internal state.What it sounds like to me is , someone found humanity 's Asperger switch.You are almost right .
The researchers on this project ( who have spoken at TED talks ) mention that it is about juries , not criminals .
It is how we judge other people 's behaviour , not how we choose to act ourselves.People with Asperger 's syndrome typically have difficulty understanding feelings ( their own and other people 's ) , but not difficulty making moral judgments , as far as I am aware.So not the Asperger 's switch .
The jury 's switch , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the MIT article: "they found that the subjects' ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people's intentions".They don't appear to have claimed a general change to moral judgments of all types.
They're saying that people were less able to make moral judgments that involved modeling someone else's internal state.What it sounds like to me is, someone found humanity's Asperger switch.You are almost right.
The researchers on this project (who have spoken at TED talks) mention that it is about juries, not criminals.
It is how we judge other people's behaviour, not how we choose to act ourselves.People with Asperger's syndrome typically have difficulty understanding feelings (their own and other people's), but not difficulty making moral judgments, as far as I am aware.So not the Asperger's switch.
The jury's switch, however.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683468</id>
	<title>If a half truth is a lie.....</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1269975780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... how many lies is there in three 1/4 truths?</p><p>"To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and change people's moral judgments is really astonishing."</p><p>1. TMS is not a magnetic field. It is a strobing of a field building up then collapsing, essentially it is Z number of magnetic fields, each lasting a few milliseconds, where Z equals X seconds times Y pulses per second. The collapsing fields dump energy into the neurons' axons. This has the effect of electroshock, except the target is a small area, not the whole brain.</p><p>2. If a magnetic field applies to a specific brain region did something, a magnetic field applied to the whole head would also. There is nothing in the brain that can tell when a part of the brain is being stimulated vs. the whole thing. Thus, someone in an MRI would have the same reaction. OTOH, they'd have a reaction to everything it were possible to instigate via external stimulation.</p><p>3. TMS doesn't change anything to anything else. It disrupts the region it is focused on, and sends it into a seizure state to where it cannot function. Thus TFA is not about changing someone's morals, it is about incapacitating the brain region with which a person makes such decisions, eliminating that part from the overall process. The result is amoral, not different morals. This far more trivial effect has been shown many times by applying TMS to various frontal areas, most notably the orbitofrontal.</p><p>Anything the brain can do, TMS can make it unable to do for a few seconds to minutes. TMS is focal electroshock. But not so focal that it can differentiate between small neighboring areas. Thus if you zapped the motor strip to incapacitate the thumb, the very near by region controlling the neck would likely get hit, and they'd lose the ability to keep their head upright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... how many lies is there in three 1/4 truths ?
" To be able to apply ( a magnetic field ) to a specific brain region and change people 's moral judgments is really astonishing. " 1 .
TMS is not a magnetic field .
It is a strobing of a field building up then collapsing , essentially it is Z number of magnetic fields , each lasting a few milliseconds , where Z equals X seconds times Y pulses per second .
The collapsing fields dump energy into the neurons ' axons .
This has the effect of electroshock , except the target is a small area , not the whole brain.2 .
If a magnetic field applies to a specific brain region did something , a magnetic field applied to the whole head would also .
There is nothing in the brain that can tell when a part of the brain is being stimulated vs. the whole thing .
Thus , someone in an MRI would have the same reaction .
OTOH , they 'd have a reaction to everything it were possible to instigate via external stimulation.3 .
TMS does n't change anything to anything else .
It disrupts the region it is focused on , and sends it into a seizure state to where it can not function .
Thus TFA is not about changing someone 's morals , it is about incapacitating the brain region with which a person makes such decisions , eliminating that part from the overall process .
The result is amoral , not different morals .
This far more trivial effect has been shown many times by applying TMS to various frontal areas , most notably the orbitofrontal.Anything the brain can do , TMS can make it unable to do for a few seconds to minutes .
TMS is focal electroshock .
But not so focal that it can differentiate between small neighboring areas .
Thus if you zapped the motor strip to incapacitate the thumb , the very near by region controlling the neck would likely get hit , and they 'd lose the ability to keep their head upright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... how many lies is there in three 1/4 truths?
"To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and change people's moral judgments is really astonishing."1.
TMS is not a magnetic field.
It is a strobing of a field building up then collapsing, essentially it is Z number of magnetic fields, each lasting a few milliseconds, where Z equals X seconds times Y pulses per second.
The collapsing fields dump energy into the neurons' axons.
This has the effect of electroshock, except the target is a small area, not the whole brain.2.
If a magnetic field applies to a specific brain region did something, a magnetic field applied to the whole head would also.
There is nothing in the brain that can tell when a part of the brain is being stimulated vs. the whole thing.
Thus, someone in an MRI would have the same reaction.
OTOH, they'd have a reaction to everything it were possible to instigate via external stimulation.3.
TMS doesn't change anything to anything else.
It disrupts the region it is focused on, and sends it into a seizure state to where it cannot function.
Thus TFA is not about changing someone's morals, it is about incapacitating the brain region with which a person makes such decisions, eliminating that part from the overall process.
The result is amoral, not different morals.
This far more trivial effect has been shown many times by applying TMS to various frontal areas, most notably the orbitofrontal.Anything the brain can do, TMS can make it unable to do for a few seconds to minutes.
TMS is focal electroshock.
But not so focal that it can differentiate between small neighboring areas.
Thus if you zapped the motor strip to incapacitate the thumb, the very near by region controlling the neck would likely get hit, and they'd lose the ability to keep their head upright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676486</id>
	<title>Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269940200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your assertion that south pole = conservative is based on flawed logic.</p><p>In truth, the southern states are further from either pole, since the US does not cross the equator.  Now, if you said that those in Argentina were more conservative than those in Mexico, that would be interesting to see...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your assertion that south pole = conservative is based on flawed logic.In truth , the southern states are further from either pole , since the US does not cross the equator .
Now , if you said that those in Argentina were more conservative than those in Mexico , that would be interesting to see.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your assertion that south pole = conservative is based on flawed logic.In truth, the southern states are further from either pole, since the US does not cross the equator.
Now, if you said that those in Argentina were more conservative than those in Mexico, that would be interesting to see...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31698904</id>
	<title>Re:As explained on NPR this morning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270122480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the poisoned, it is. For the net health of a society/tribe/community, it is. What do you want now, a moral or a healthy society?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the poisoned , it is .
For the net health of a society/tribe/community , it is .
What do you want now , a moral or a healthy society ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the poisoned, it is.
For the net health of a society/tribe/community, it is.
What do you want now, a moral or a healthy society?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675308</id>
	<title>Ah that's it, is it</title>
	<author>andrea.sartori</author>
	<datestamp>1269979380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This would explain an awful lot of things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would explain an awful lot of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would explain an awful lot of things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676842</id>
	<title>TMS is a *really* powerful magnet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269941280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got my masters in Cognitive and Neural Systems a few years ago and we worked with TMS-derived data. TMS is a *really* powerful magnet placed directly on your skull. It can induce seizures. It can make you temporarily lose various other abilities like the ability to speak or the ability to see colors. This is not a low-grade magnetic field. It was also hard at the time for researchers to control exactly which brain region they were knocking out, though this may have improved since then. The research is interesting because they've demonstrated that this area of the brain modulates morality, but the magnetic fields to generate such a disruptive effect would have rather noticeable effects (like being inside a giant MRI machine) if they were present at longer range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got my masters in Cognitive and Neural Systems a few years ago and we worked with TMS-derived data .
TMS is a * really * powerful magnet placed directly on your skull .
It can induce seizures .
It can make you temporarily lose various other abilities like the ability to speak or the ability to see colors .
This is not a low-grade magnetic field .
It was also hard at the time for researchers to control exactly which brain region they were knocking out , though this may have improved since then .
The research is interesting because they 've demonstrated that this area of the brain modulates morality , but the magnetic fields to generate such a disruptive effect would have rather noticeable effects ( like being inside a giant MRI machine ) if they were present at longer range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got my masters in Cognitive and Neural Systems a few years ago and we worked with TMS-derived data.
TMS is a *really* powerful magnet placed directly on your skull.
It can induce seizures.
It can make you temporarily lose various other abilities like the ability to speak or the ability to see colors.
This is not a low-grade magnetic field.
It was also hard at the time for researchers to control exactly which brain region they were knocking out, though this may have improved since then.
The research is interesting because they've demonstrated that this area of the brain modulates morality, but the magnetic fields to generate such a disruptive effect would have rather noticeable effects (like being inside a giant MRI machine) if they were present at longer range.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675946</id>
	<title>It gave them clarity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269981660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It allowed them to see through all the BS socially-constructed notions of right and wrong to something tangible and impactful: the causing of harm.</p><p>Sounds like more people should have this done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It allowed them to see through all the BS socially-constructed notions of right and wrong to something tangible and impactful : the causing of harm.Sounds like more people should have this done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It allowed them to see through all the BS socially-constructed notions of right and wrong to something tangible and impactful: the causing of harm.Sounds like more people should have this done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675942</id>
	<title>Causation</title>
	<author>Gorath99</author>
	<datestamp>1269981600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another.</p></div><p>Now, now. I think we can all agree that this is strong evidence for lack of morality causing magnetism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Young points out that the study was correlation ; their work only links the RTJP , morality and magnetic fields , but does n't definitively prove that one causes another.Now , now .
I think we can all agree that this is strong evidence for lack of morality causing magnetism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another.Now, now.
I think we can all agree that this is strong evidence for lack of morality causing magnetism.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31687004</id>
	<title>Should read "Magnetism makes people more rational"</title>
	<author>Draque</author>
	<datestamp>1270047720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having read through that, all I can think is that the magnetism made people more rational.  It said that after the treatment, people were more likely to base morality solely on whether an action caused harm.  To me, that is entirely reasonable.  If something causes no harm, we have no basis to call it immoral other than some personal preference without citing some higher power (which again, I see as irrational).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read through that , all I can think is that the magnetism made people more rational .
It said that after the treatment , people were more likely to base morality solely on whether an action caused harm .
To me , that is entirely reasonable .
If something causes no harm , we have no basis to call it immoral other than some personal preference without citing some higher power ( which again , I see as irrational ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read through that, all I can think is that the magnetism made people more rational.
It said that after the treatment, people were more likely to base morality solely on whether an action caused harm.
To me, that is entirely reasonable.
If something causes no harm, we have no basis to call it immoral other than some personal preference without citing some higher power (which again, I see as irrational).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675450</id>
	<title>Alcohol</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1269979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Beer must have an extremely strong magnetic field....  morality goes out the door whenever I consume a few too many.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beer must have an extremely strong magnetic field.... morality goes out the door whenever I consume a few too many .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beer must have an extremely strong magnetic field....  morality goes out the door whenever I consume a few too many.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31684866</id>
	<title>Mageneto Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270032180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder Magneto is a bad guy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder Magneto is a bad guy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder Magneto is a bad guy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675716</id>
	<title>What about the age?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't say about the age of the volunteers but I'd wager they're all students with no real life experience, I'd like to see them try this with older people, that had their morals tested and tried over the years, all the students have is the theory of what is right and wrong, but with no life experience to reinforce it. Aside from that I'm curious how this affects cops, criminals or others that have their morals tested heavily over the years, without significantly changing their path.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't say about the age of the volunteers but I 'd wager they 're all students with no real life experience , I 'd like to see them try this with older people , that had their morals tested and tried over the years , all the students have is the theory of what is right and wrong , but with no life experience to reinforce it .
Aside from that I 'm curious how this affects cops , criminals or others that have their morals tested heavily over the years , without significantly changing their path .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't say about the age of the volunteers but I'd wager they're all students with no real life experience, I'd like to see them try this with older people, that had their morals tested and tried over the years, all the students have is the theory of what is right and wrong, but with no life experience to reinforce it.
Aside from that I'm curious how this affects cops, criminals or others that have their morals tested heavily over the years, without significantly changing their path.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676772</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1269941040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course morality causes magnetism. I know for a fact strong moralism repels me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course morality causes magnetism .
I know for a fact strong moralism repels me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course morality causes magnetism.
I know for a fact strong moralism repels me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1269939720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.</p></div><p>Cheat in a game of Solitaire?  Its "wrong" to cheat, but nothing bad could possibly happen as a result?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm.Cheat in a game of Solitaire ?
Its " wrong " to cheat , but nothing bad could possibly happen as a result ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.Cheat in a game of Solitaire?
Its "wrong" to cheat, but nothing bad could possibly happen as a result?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675566</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>adonoman</author>
	<datestamp>1269980220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.</p></div><p>
But those philosophies are only held by people with too much magnetic stimulation.<br>

I am a bit confused about his correlation disclaimer.  Is he saying it's possible that people who had the less judgmental morality caused the magnetism?  Or that some external factor caused them to become more judgmental and more likely to get their brains magnetized?  It seems to me that unless they were lazy and didn't do any proper controls (which would be trivial in this case - just don't turn on the machine), that applying magnetism cause the moral swing.  But then, maybe that's why I didn't go to MIT.  Perhaps someone can elucidate what I'm missing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical .
But those philosophies are only held by people with too much magnetic stimulation .
I am a bit confused about his correlation disclaimer .
Is he saying it 's possible that people who had the less judgmental morality caused the magnetism ?
Or that some external factor caused them to become more judgmental and more likely to get their brains magnetized ?
It seems to me that unless they were lazy and did n't do any proper controls ( which would be trivial in this case - just do n't turn on the machine ) , that applying magnetism cause the moral swing .
But then , maybe that 's why I did n't go to MIT .
Perhaps someone can elucidate what I 'm missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.
But those philosophies are only held by people with too much magnetic stimulation.
I am a bit confused about his correlation disclaimer.
Is he saying it's possible that people who had the less judgmental morality caused the magnetism?
Or that some external factor caused them to become more judgmental and more likely to get their brains magnetized?
It seems to me that unless they were lazy and didn't do any proper controls (which would be trivial in this case - just don't turn on the machine), that applying magnetism cause the moral swing.
But then, maybe that's why I didn't go to MIT.
Perhaps someone can elucidate what I'm missing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675396</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Jazz-Masta</author>
	<datestamp>1269979680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it isn't just a bad cliche when in the movies the bad guys always run a car salvage/crushing yard with the big electromagnet cranes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it is n't just a bad cliche when in the movies the bad guys always run a car salvage/crushing yard with the big electromagnet cranes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it isn't just a bad cliche when in the movies the bad guys always run a car salvage/crushing yard with the big electromagnet cranes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676112</id>
	<title>Coming To Terms</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1269982200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's first necessary to define one's terms, isn't it? What is meant by morality.<p>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality" title="wikipedia.org">Morality</a> [wikipedia.org] (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous. Morality has three principal meanings"</p><p>

"In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred. This sense of term is also addressed by descriptive ethics."</p><p>Virtue is a concept addressed across the board from the first big boys on the block like Buddha, Confucius and Socrates, but it's a tricky subject. I had to find my own way on this one because there seemed to be endless gradations and seepage of morality into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics" title="wikipedia.org">ethics</a> [wikipedia.org] and ethics into morality. My own moral compass operates from animal behaviour, my animal behaviour. I consider morality to derive directly from our basic drives or instincts. My morality goes to things like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight\_response" title="wikipedia.org">Fight-or-flight response</a> [wikipedia.org]. Ethics, like aesthetics, deals with abstractions from instincts.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex\_Talionis" title="wikipedia.org">Lex Talionis</a> [wikipedia.org] is the granddaddy of morality and goes to things like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code\_of\_Hammurabi" title="wikipedia.org">Code of Hammurabi</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>I'm not sure morality can be tested in a lab because labs tend to require restricted environments that are artificially impoverished or supplemented in ways that vitiate the results.Today much of neuroscience looks like neo-crypto-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology" title="wikipedia.org">phrenology</a> [wikipedia.org]. And moral values tend to speak to concepts of law and there the test of reasonableness holds sway, but does it in the jungle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's first necessary to define one 's terms , is n't it ?
What is meant by morality .
" Morality [ wikipedia.org ] ( from the Latin moralities " manner , character , proper behavior " ) is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous .
Morality has three principal meanings " " In its " descriptive " sense , morality refers to personal or cultural values , codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society .
Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong , but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people .
For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm , but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice , ignorance or even hatred .
This sense of term is also addressed by descriptive ethics .
" Virtue is a concept addressed across the board from the first big boys on the block like Buddha , Confucius and Socrates , but it 's a tricky subject .
I had to find my own way on this one because there seemed to be endless gradations and seepage of morality into ethics [ wikipedia.org ] and ethics into morality .
My own moral compass operates from animal behaviour , my animal behaviour .
I consider morality to derive directly from our basic drives or instincts .
My morality goes to things like Fight-or-flight response [ wikipedia.org ] .
Ethics , like aesthetics , deals with abstractions from instincts.Lex Talionis [ wikipedia.org ] is the granddaddy of morality and goes to things like the Code of Hammurabi [ wikipedia.org ] .I 'm not sure morality can be tested in a lab because labs tend to require restricted environments that are artificially impoverished or supplemented in ways that vitiate the results.Today much of neuroscience looks like neo-crypto-phrenology [ wikipedia.org ] .
And moral values tend to speak to concepts of law and there the test of reasonableness holds sway , but does it in the jungle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's first necessary to define one's terms, isn't it?
What is meant by morality.
"Morality [wikipedia.org] (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous.
Morality has three principal meanings"

"In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.
Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people.
For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.
This sense of term is also addressed by descriptive ethics.
"Virtue is a concept addressed across the board from the first big boys on the block like Buddha, Confucius and Socrates, but it's a tricky subject.
I had to find my own way on this one because there seemed to be endless gradations and seepage of morality into ethics [wikipedia.org] and ethics into morality.
My own moral compass operates from animal behaviour, my animal behaviour.
I consider morality to derive directly from our basic drives or instincts.
My morality goes to things like Fight-or-flight response [wikipedia.org].
Ethics, like aesthetics, deals with abstractions from instincts.Lex Talionis [wikipedia.org] is the granddaddy of morality and goes to things like the Code of Hammurabi [wikipedia.org].I'm not sure morality can be tested in a lab because labs tend to require restricted environments that are artificially impoverished or supplemented in ways that vitiate the results.Today much of neuroscience looks like neo-crypto-phrenology [wikipedia.org].
And moral values tend to speak to concepts of law and there the test of reasonableness holds sway, but does it in the jungle?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675642</id>
	<title>Well, the ethical self-referential question is:</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1269980520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is this good ? or is it bad ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>is this good ?
or is it bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is this good ?
or is it bad ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677834</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269944580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Smoking pot harms no one... Adultery is immoral (and harmful)...</p></div><p>Thank you for neatly disproving your own argument.  Both of these things are pure opinion, it is trivial to argue both in either direction.</p><p>And, fwiw, the moral dilemmas they posed were of the lines of "sally and alice are at a chemical plant.  alice gives sally a cup of coffee and in it she puts what she thinks is sugar but it's really poison.  was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally?"  vs "sally and alice are at a chemical plant.  alice gives sally a cup of coffee and also adds some poison to it while sally thinks it only has sugar in it.  was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally?"  And so on and so forth in various ways that include the poison working and the poison being ineffective, in either the malicious or the benign scenario.  These approach the issue of doing harm vs intending to do harm, for outcomes that are either benign or harmful, which illustrates the extent at which someone is willing to classify something as "wrong" depending on the intent AND the outcome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Smoking pot harms no one... Adultery is immoral ( and harmful ) ...Thank you for neatly disproving your own argument .
Both of these things are pure opinion , it is trivial to argue both in either direction.And , fwiw , the moral dilemmas they posed were of the lines of " sally and alice are at a chemical plant .
alice gives sally a cup of coffee and in it she puts what she thinks is sugar but it 's really poison .
was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally ?
" vs " sally and alice are at a chemical plant .
alice gives sally a cup of coffee and also adds some poison to it while sally thinks it only has sugar in it .
was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally ?
" And so on and so forth in various ways that include the poison working and the poison being ineffective , in either the malicious or the benign scenario .
These approach the issue of doing harm vs intending to do harm , for outcomes that are either benign or harmful , which illustrates the extent at which someone is willing to classify something as " wrong " depending on the intent AND the outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Smoking pot harms no one... Adultery is immoral (and harmful)...Thank you for neatly disproving your own argument.
Both of these things are pure opinion, it is trivial to argue both in either direction.And, fwiw, the moral dilemmas they posed were of the lines of "sally and alice are at a chemical plant.
alice gives sally a cup of coffee and in it she puts what she thinks is sugar but it's really poison.
was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally?
"  vs "sally and alice are at a chemical plant.
alice gives sally a cup of coffee and also adds some poison to it while sally thinks it only has sugar in it.
was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally?
"  And so on and so forth in various ways that include the poison working and the poison being ineffective, in either the malicious or the benign scenario.
These approach the issue of doing harm vs intending to do harm, for outcomes that are either benign or harmful, which illustrates the extent at which someone is willing to classify something as "wrong" depending on the intent AND the outcome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31680140</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Tromad</author>
	<datestamp>1269954900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you cheat you are violating the trust of others, which does cause psychological harm, although the harm only comes if they find out about the cheating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you cheat you are violating the trust of others , which does cause psychological harm , although the harm only comes if they find out about the cheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you cheat you are violating the trust of others, which does cause psychological harm, although the harm only comes if they find out about the cheating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678146</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>bar-agent</author>
	<datestamp>1269946080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is interesting is the unspoken assumption that we should value the lives of strangers as much as we value the lives of friends. That is not really how it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is interesting is the unspoken assumption that we should value the lives of strangers as much as we value the lives of friends .
That is not really how it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is interesting is the unspoken assumption that we should value the lives of strangers as much as we value the lives of friends.
That is not really how it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269981120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't sound like a sound defense. Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality; there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example. Whether you're talking about Druids, Christians, Jews, Hindus, any religion, none have any injunction against smoking pot. Smoking pot harms no one. The marijuana laws were passed by lies (see the propaganda movie "Reefer Madness"). Laws are subjective; they are NOT based on morality. Adultery is immoral (and harmful), yet there's no law against it in my state.</p><p>What confuses me, (and I RTFA just because it did confuse me, and TFA gave no answer) is what kinds of moral delimmas did they present?</p><p><i>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.</i></p><p>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't sound like a sound defense .
Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality ; there 's nothing immoral about smoking pot , for example .
Whether you 're talking about Druids , Christians , Jews , Hindus , any religion , none have any injunction against smoking pot .
Smoking pot harms no one .
The marijuana laws were passed by lies ( see the propaganda movie " Reefer Madness " ) .
Laws are subjective ; they are NOT based on morality .
Adultery is immoral ( and harmful ) , yet there 's no law against it in my state.What confuses me , ( and I RTFA just because it did confuse me , and TFA gave no answer ) is what kinds of moral delimmas did they present ? The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm .
Did I read the wrong FA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't sound like a sound defense.
Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality; there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example.
Whether you're talking about Druids, Christians, Jews, Hindus, any religion, none have any injunction against smoking pot.
Smoking pot harms no one.
The marijuana laws were passed by lies (see the propaganda movie "Reefer Madness").
Laws are subjective; they are NOT based on morality.
Adultery is immoral (and harmful), yet there's no law against it in my state.What confuses me, (and I RTFA just because it did confuse me, and TFA gave no answer) is what kinds of moral delimmas did they present?The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.
Did I read the wrong FA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675812</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1269981060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you mean "How long until this is used in the military?"</p><p>The military, by necessity, trains people to commit what are generally immoral acts such as killing people or blowing up someone else's house. I wouldn't be surprised to see them very interested in tools to make that piece of the training easier to accomplish, even if it involves very expensive tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you mean " How long until this is used in the military ?
" The military , by necessity , trains people to commit what are generally immoral acts such as killing people or blowing up someone else 's house .
I would n't be surprised to see them very interested in tools to make that piece of the training easier to accomplish , even if it involves very expensive tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you mean "How long until this is used in the military?
"The military, by necessity, trains people to commit what are generally immoral acts such as killing people or blowing up someone else's house.
I wouldn't be surprised to see them very interested in tools to make that piece of the training easier to accomplish, even if it involves very expensive tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676148</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269982320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>About as long as it takes to get into a joke. For example, "A man walks into a bar with a giant super powerful magnet. He goes home with all the girls and the utensils too."</htmltext>
<tokenext>About as long as it takes to get into a joke .
For example , " A man walks into a bar with a giant super powerful magnet .
He goes home with all the girls and the utensils too .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About as long as it takes to get into a joke.
For example, "A man walks into a bar with a giant super powerful magnet.
He goes home with all the girls and the utensils too.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675746</id>
	<title>Money</title>
	<author>Grand Facade</author>
	<datestamp>1269980880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So money must be magnetic?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So money must be magnetic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So money must be magnetic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676466</id>
	<title>TED</title>
	<author>intercept</author>
	<datestamp>1269940140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a really interesting TED Talk about this type of stuff:

<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca\_saxe\_how\_brains\_make\_moral\_judgments.html" title="ted.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca\_saxe\_how\_brains\_make\_moral\_judgments.html</a> [ted.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a really interesting TED Talk about this type of stuff : http : //www.ted.com/talks/rebecca \ _saxe \ _how \ _brains \ _make \ _moral \ _judgments.html [ ted.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a really interesting TED Talk about this type of stuff:

http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca\_saxe\_how\_brains\_make\_moral\_judgments.html [ted.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683598</id>
	<title>TMS is ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269977220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Transcranial (through the skull) Magnetic \_STIMULATION\_ .</p><p>TNS is designed to muck things up, and it's already known that it will disable (or excite) the parts of the brain that it's pointed toward.</p><p>It's interesting that if you muck up the part they pointed to, you get an effect selective for moral judgments, but to believe that one couldn't affect moral judgments by mucking about in the brain is to believe in dualism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Transcranial ( through the skull ) Magnetic \ _STIMULATION \ _ .TNS is designed to muck things up , and it 's already known that it will disable ( or excite ) the parts of the brain that it 's pointed toward.It 's interesting that if you muck up the part they pointed to , you get an effect selective for moral judgments , but to believe that one could n't affect moral judgments by mucking about in the brain is to believe in dualism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Transcranial (through the skull) Magnetic \_STIMULATION\_ .TNS is designed to muck things up, and it's already known that it will disable (or excite) the parts of the brain that it's pointed toward.It's interesting that if you muck up the part they pointed to, you get an effect selective for moral judgments, but to believe that one couldn't affect moral judgments by mucking about in the brain is to believe in dualism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676454</id>
	<title>And where do you hold a cell phone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269940080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sounds like it's *just* *that* *spot* near the ear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... sounds like it 's * just * * that * * spot * near the ear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... sounds like it's *just* *that* *spot* near the ear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678544</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>MtHuurne</author>
	<datestamp>1269947580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that cheating or applying a house rule? When playing a game, you don't necessarily have to play by the book, as long as all players agree on the rules. In the case of Solitaire, "all players" is you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that cheating or applying a house rule ?
When playing a game , you do n't necessarily have to play by the book , as long as all players agree on the rules .
In the case of Solitaire , " all players " is you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that cheating or applying a house rule?
When playing a game, you don't necessarily have to play by the book, as long as all players agree on the rules.
In the case of Solitaire, "all players" is you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675650</id>
	<title>Re:Ah that's it, is it</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1269980580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the efficiency of sound waves at swaying man's moral compass I'm not sure this really changes much. With the rates indicated by various Milgramesque experiments, simply appending 'that's an order' may be a far more effective way of disabling someone's moral compass than pointing fancy-shmancy TMS equipment at them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the efficiency of sound waves at swaying man 's moral compass I 'm not sure this really changes much .
With the rates indicated by various Milgramesque experiments , simply appending 'that 's an order ' may be a far more effective way of disabling someone 's moral compass than pointing fancy-shmancy TMS equipment at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the efficiency of sound waves at swaying man's moral compass I'm not sure this really changes much.
With the rates indicated by various Milgramesque experiments, simply appending 'that's an order' may be a far more effective way of disabling someone's moral compass than pointing fancy-shmancy TMS equipment at them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677262</id>
	<title>Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1269942420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really wish there was an "awesome" mod.  I guess I could mod it insightful.  It wasn't really funny.  There have been lots of times I've wanted to mod something "awesome" and just don't know how to categorize it.  Maybe next time I'll use informative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wish there was an " awesome " mod .
I guess I could mod it insightful .
It was n't really funny .
There have been lots of times I 've wanted to mod something " awesome " and just do n't know how to categorize it .
Maybe next time I 'll use informative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wish there was an "awesome" mod.
I guess I could mod it insightful.
It wasn't really funny.
There have been lots of times I've wanted to mod something "awesome" and just don't know how to categorize it.
Maybe next time I'll use informative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678156</id>
	<title>Re:Alcohol</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1269946140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Beer must have an extremely strong magnetic field.... morality goes out the door whenever I consume a few too many.</p></div> </blockquote><p>How strange. All I get is a good, relaxed feeling and a buzz.</p><p>Are you sure it's the beer and not you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beer must have an extremely strong magnetic field.... morality goes out the door whenever I consume a few too many .
How strange .
All I get is a good , relaxed feeling and a buzz.Are you sure it 's the beer and not you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beer must have an extremely strong magnetic field.... morality goes out the door whenever I consume a few too many.
How strange.
All I get is a good, relaxed feeling and a buzz.Are you sure it's the beer and not you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676906</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269941460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what about high-stakes solitaire? I'm not sure if such a thing exists, but if there was money on the table, cheating would be wrong and cause harm, no? I'm grasping at straws here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what about high-stakes solitaire ?
I 'm not sure if such a thing exists , but if there was money on the table , cheating would be wrong and cause harm , no ?
I 'm grasping at straws here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what about high-stakes solitaire?
I'm not sure if such a thing exists, but if there was money on the table, cheating would be wrong and cause harm, no?
I'm grasping at straws here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31684192</id>
	<title>So can I use a magnet to pick up</title>
	<author>nuckfuts</author>
	<datestamp>1270026000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <strong>girls in a bar</strong>?</p><p>And should I use a bar magnet because I'm in a bar, or a horseshoe magnet because I'm hoping to get lucky?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>girls in a bar ? And should I use a bar magnet because I 'm in a bar , or a horseshoe magnet because I 'm hoping to get lucky ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> girls in a bar?And should I use a bar magnet because I'm in a bar, or a horseshoe magnet because I'm hoping to get lucky?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677162</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>coolsnowmen</author>
	<datestamp>1269942120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?</p></div><p>Steal an iPOD<br>Sell your vote<br>Do nothing when you hear about bad things being done-- like a gay friend of yours sleeping with a married man.<br>Never pay for music from artists that make above minimum wage but download their songs anyways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm .
Did I read the wrong FA ? Steal an iPODSell your voteDo nothing when you hear about bad things being done-- like a gay friend of yours sleeping with a married man.Never pay for music from artists that make above minimum wage but download their songs anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.
Did I read the wrong FA?Steal an iPODSell your voteDo nothing when you hear about bad things being done-- like a gay friend of yours sleeping with a married man.Never pay for music from artists that make above minimum wage but download their songs anyways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676916</id>
	<title>Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation</title>
	<author>mick129</author>
	<datestamp>1269941520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just "a magnetic field" which was used in this study, it's TMS.  TMS uses a strong magnetic field to <b>induce an electrical current inside someone's head</b>, similar to direct stimulation using electrodes but without all the surgery.  There is a electromagnetic "paddle" held next to the skull in a specific orientation so that the electrical current will be in the intended spot in the brain.</p><p>Also, TMS has no special relationship with the brain area which affects moral judgement.  TMS can be used to stimulate any area and often the effect is disrupting the function of that area.  So with some good aiming you can inhibit speech, distort vision, etc.</p><p>The "magnets == amoral judgement" bit is just silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just " a magnetic field " which was used in this study , it 's TMS .
TMS uses a strong magnetic field to induce an electrical current inside someone 's head , similar to direct stimulation using electrodes but without all the surgery .
There is a electromagnetic " paddle " held next to the skull in a specific orientation so that the electrical current will be in the intended spot in the brain.Also , TMS has no special relationship with the brain area which affects moral judgement .
TMS can be used to stimulate any area and often the effect is disrupting the function of that area .
So with some good aiming you can inhibit speech , distort vision , etc.The " magnets = = amoral judgement " bit is just silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just "a magnetic field" which was used in this study, it's TMS.
TMS uses a strong magnetic field to induce an electrical current inside someone's head, similar to direct stimulation using electrodes but without all the surgery.
There is a electromagnetic "paddle" held next to the skull in a specific orientation so that the electrical current will be in the intended spot in the brain.Also, TMS has no special relationship with the brain area which affects moral judgement.
TMS can be used to stimulate any area and often the effect is disrupting the function of that area.
So with some good aiming you can inhibit speech, distort vision, etc.The "magnets == amoral judgement" bit is just silly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677016</id>
	<title>OP got it wrong.</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1269941700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OP stated: <i>"The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves."</i>
<br> <br>
No, according to TFA, that is not what they found. There was nothing about something being "morally wrong in itself".
<br> <br>
Rather, the experimental subjects tended more to judge a person's actions based solely on outcome, rather than the intent, whereas control subjects were more willing to judge based on a person's intentions, even if the outcome was negative.
<br> <br>
That is not the same thing at all. There was nothing about an action being morally right or wrong "in itself". That would be religion, not morality.
<br> <br>
However, the experiment did seem to leave out one common real-world situation. In the experiment, the person was either completely unaware of a possible bad outcome, or caused the bad outcome on purpose. Apparently they did not include the case where the person's intentions are good, and the the person reasonably should have known (but for some reason did not) that the outcome would be bad.
<br> <br>
I have seen an awful lot of well-meaning people do a lot of bad things, when they really should have known better but somehow did not. Especially in government. But then, in the case of government I question whether it was really ignorance, or just pretense.
<br> <br>
---<br>
<i>"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."</i> --  U.S. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis</htmltext>
<tokenext>OP stated : " The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves .
" No , according to TFA , that is not what they found .
There was nothing about something being " morally wrong in itself " .
Rather , the experimental subjects tended more to judge a person 's actions based solely on outcome , rather than the intent , whereas control subjects were more willing to judge based on a person 's intentions , even if the outcome was negative .
That is not the same thing at all .
There was nothing about an action being morally right or wrong " in itself " .
That would be religion , not morality .
However , the experiment did seem to leave out one common real-world situation .
In the experiment , the person was either completely unaware of a possible bad outcome , or caused the bad outcome on purpose .
Apparently they did not include the case where the person 's intentions are good , and the the person reasonably should have known ( but for some reason did not ) that the outcome would be bad .
I have seen an awful lot of well-meaning people do a lot of bad things , when they really should have known better but somehow did not .
Especially in government .
But then , in the case of government I question whether it was really ignorance , or just pretense .
--- " Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government 's purposes are beneficent .
Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers .
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal , well-meaning but without understanding .
" -- U.S. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OP stated: "The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.
"
 
No, according to TFA, that is not what they found.
There was nothing about something being "morally wrong in itself".
Rather, the experimental subjects tended more to judge a person's actions based solely on outcome, rather than the intent, whereas control subjects were more willing to judge based on a person's intentions, even if the outcome was negative.
That is not the same thing at all.
There was nothing about an action being morally right or wrong "in itself".
That would be religion, not morality.
However, the experiment did seem to leave out one common real-world situation.
In the experiment, the person was either completely unaware of a possible bad outcome, or caused the bad outcome on purpose.
Apparently they did not include the case where the person's intentions are good, and the the person reasonably should have known (but for some reason did not) that the outcome would be bad.
I have seen an awful lot of well-meaning people do a lot of bad things, when they really should have known better but somehow did not.
Especially in government.
But then, in the case of government I question whether it was really ignorance, or just pretense.
---
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent.
Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
" --  U.S. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31687806</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1270050720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many times has the "Your honor, I only killed him because alcohol impaired my judgment" defense worked in court?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many times has the " Your honor , I only killed him because alcohol impaired my judgment " defense worked in court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many times has the "Your honor, I only killed him because alcohol impaired my judgment" defense worked in court?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675524</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>shhh the scientists are holding this research for when the cops find the dead hooker in the back of their car</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>shhh the scientists are holding this research for when the cops find the dead hooker in the back of their car</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shhh the scientists are holding this research for when the cops find the dead hooker in the back of their car</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675912</id>
	<title>*Quickly changing* magnetic fields</title>
	<author>neonleonb</author>
	<datestamp>1269981540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TMS works by using quickly-changing magnetic fields to induce electric fields and neural firing. After 25 minutes of this, the neurons in that region are thoroughly worn out and don't function right for a while (see research on "temporary lesions").</p><p>This isn't about magnetic fields in general, just about very strong, quickly-changing ones applied to this one spot for a long time. This is among the most sensational writeup I've ever seen, and it totally misrepresents the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TMS works by using quickly-changing magnetic fields to induce electric fields and neural firing .
After 25 minutes of this , the neurons in that region are thoroughly worn out and do n't function right for a while ( see research on " temporary lesions " ) .This is n't about magnetic fields in general , just about very strong , quickly-changing ones applied to this one spot for a long time .
This is among the most sensational writeup I 've ever seen , and it totally misrepresents the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TMS works by using quickly-changing magnetic fields to induce electric fields and neural firing.
After 25 minutes of this, the neurons in that region are thoroughly worn out and don't function right for a while (see research on "temporary lesions").This isn't about magnetic fields in general, just about very strong, quickly-changing ones applied to this one spot for a long time.
This is among the most sensational writeup I've ever seen, and it totally misrepresents the point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675446</id>
	<title>Innocent by reason of magnetism</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1269979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your Honor it was not my fault. The Earth's magnetic field in a fit of anomalous abnormally high activity a half-hour prior to the robbery compromised my frontal lobe's capacity to allow me to understand what I was going to do was wrong......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Honor it was not my fault .
The Earth 's magnetic field in a fit of anomalous abnormally high activity a half-hour prior to the robbery compromised my frontal lobe 's capacity to allow me to understand what I was going to do was wrong..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Honor it was not my fault.
The Earth's magnetic field in a fit of anomalous abnormally high activity a half-hour prior to the robbery compromised my frontal lobe's capacity to allow me to understand what I was going to do was wrong......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683686</id>
	<title>Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment</title>
	<author>LongearedBat</author>
	<datestamp>1269977820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, that explains Magneto's sense of morals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , that explains Magneto 's sense of morals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, that explains Magneto's sense of morals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678474</id>
	<title>Re:Alcohol</title>
	<author>O-Deka-K</author>
	<datestamp>1269947280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes. Beer does make people more attractive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Beer does make people more attractive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Beer does make people more attractive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675432</id>
	<title>Re:Ah that's it, is it</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1269979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for one thing we now know that the magnetic fields in Amsterdam and Bangkok are way out of kilter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes ... for one thing we now know that the magnetic fields in Amsterdam and Bangkok are way out of kilter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes ... for one thing we now know that the magnetic fields in Amsterdam and Bangkok are way out of kilter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676912</id>
	<title>more human than human</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1269941460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Morality or Empathy?  Where are all the Voigt-Kampff references?<blockquote><div><p>You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it's crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't, not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?</p></div></blockquote><p>

<a href="http://www.newcastletaichi.co.uk/Voigt-Kampff\%20Test.htm" title="newcastletaichi.co.uk">Voigt-Kampff questions from Blade Runner</a> [newcastletaichi.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Morality or Empathy ?
Where are all the Voigt-Kampff references ? You 're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down , and you see a tortoise , it 's crawling toward you .
You reach down , you flip the tortoise over on its back .
The tortoise lays on its back , its belly baking in the hot sun , beating its legs trying to turn itself over , but it ca n't , not without your help .
But you 're not helping .
Why is that ?
Voigt-Kampff questions from Blade Runner [ newcastletaichi.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Morality or Empathy?
Where are all the Voigt-Kampff references?You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it's crawling toward you.
You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back.
The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't, not without your help.
But you're not helping.
Why is that?
Voigt-Kampff questions from Blade Runner [newcastletaichi.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31682584</id>
	<title>futurama...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269967800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"She'll be coming around the mountain when she comes. I'll kill you amy. She'll be coming..."<br>Futurama - series 1 episode 2</p><p>Guess it won't just be Bender singing folk songs when a magnet is placed on his head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" She 'll be coming around the mountain when she comes .
I 'll kill you amy .
She 'll be coming... " Futurama - series 1 episode 2Guess it wo n't just be Bender singing folk songs when a magnet is placed on his head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"She'll be coming around the mountain when she comes.
I'll kill you amy.
She'll be coming..."Futurama - series 1 episode 2Guess it won't just be Bender singing folk songs when a magnet is placed on his head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677888</id>
	<title>In Before...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269944820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the quack Enquirer-ad-product people start hocking 'Love Magnets'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the quack Enquirer-ad-product people start hocking 'Love Magnets'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the quack Enquirer-ad-product people start hocking 'Love Magnets'...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675364</id>
	<title>The difference?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1269979560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves</p></div><p>Short of a Doctorate of Philosophy in Ethics, what's the difference?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselvesShort of a Doctorate of Philosophy in Ethics , what 's the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselvesShort of a Doctorate of Philosophy in Ethics, what's the difference?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679222</id>
	<title>Re:Good news!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1269950940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It only affects morals, not taste. What you need to do is to fill her with beer.</i></p><p>We're talking about a slashdotter and a date.</p><p>Clearly what he needs to do is fill her with <i>air</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only affects morals , not taste .
What you need to do is to fill her with beer.We 're talking about a slashdotter and a date.Clearly what he needs to do is fill her with air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only affects morals, not taste.
What you need to do is to fill her with beer.We're talking about a slashdotter and a date.Clearly what he needs to do is fill her with air.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</id>
	<title>Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>hipp5</author>
	<datestamp>1269979320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long until this is used as a defense in court?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long until this is used as a defense in court ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long until this is used as a defense in court?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677964</id>
	<title>Re:Morality?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269945180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the opposite true? All harm to another in immoral?</p><p>Now you can begin to think about this finding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the opposite true ?
All harm to another in immoral ? Now you can begin to think about this finding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the opposite true?
All harm to another in immoral?Now you can begin to think about this finding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31685402</id>
	<title>What about...</title>
	<author>carvalhao</author>
	<datestamp>1270037640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... 25 minutes of cellphone on the right ear?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... 25 minutes of cellphone on the right ear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... 25 minutes of cellphone on the right ear?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676482</id>
	<title>If this is the case</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1269940140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does this jive with the idea that morality can come only from a divine being?  Can EMI prevent the angel on my shoulder from talking to me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this jive with the idea that morality can come only from a divine being ?
Can EMI prevent the angel on my shoulder from talking to me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this jive with the idea that morality can come only from a divine being?
Can EMI prevent the angel on my shoulder from talking to me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675530</id>
	<title>How long till it's built into helmets?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1269980100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very useful feature that.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very useful feature that .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very useful feature that.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681878</id>
	<title>Re:Military use, ahoy!</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1269963540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>War has fewer gray zones than the movies would have you believe. Trust me, you don't need a magnetic helmet to shoot, or shoot back, when you feel your life is in danger.</p><p>The only 'morally dubious' situations I ran across in Iraq look like child's play compared to what I have to deal with here in the real world. Over there, it's nature, red in tooth and claw- here, it's "I keep waiting for you to ask me how my day went"-type b.s., or deciding how to deal with a friend who screwed up at work (should I say something? If I don't, I'm implicitly condoning his behavior! If I say something to the boss, I'll be his enemy... If I just say something to him personally, he'll think I'm being condescending...)</p><p>When your life is not on the line, stuff gets complicated. War... war is not very complicated. Dulce bellum inexpertis.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>War has fewer gray zones than the movies would have you believe .
Trust me , you do n't need a magnetic helmet to shoot , or shoot back , when you feel your life is in danger.The only 'morally dubious ' situations I ran across in Iraq look like child 's play compared to what I have to deal with here in the real world .
Over there , it 's nature , red in tooth and claw- here , it 's " I keep waiting for you to ask me how my day went " -type b.s. , or deciding how to deal with a friend who screwed up at work ( should I say something ?
If I do n't , I 'm implicitly condoning his behavior !
If I say something to the boss , I 'll be his enemy... If I just say something to him personally , he 'll think I 'm being condescending... ) When your life is not on the line , stuff gets complicated .
War... war is not very complicated .
Dulce bellum inexpertis.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War has fewer gray zones than the movies would have you believe.
Trust me, you don't need a magnetic helmet to shoot, or shoot back, when you feel your life is in danger.The only 'morally dubious' situations I ran across in Iraq look like child's play compared to what I have to deal with here in the real world.
Over there, it's nature, red in tooth and claw- here, it's "I keep waiting for you to ask me how my day went"-type b.s., or deciding how to deal with a friend who screwed up at work (should I say something?
If I don't, I'm implicitly condoning his behavior!
If I say something to the boss, I'll be his enemy... If I just say something to him personally, he'll think I'm being condescending...)When your life is not on the line, stuff gets complicated.
War... war is not very complicated.
Dulce bellum inexpertis.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676448</id>
	<title>TED talk</title>
	<author>slinches</author>
	<datestamp>1269940080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rebecca\_saxe\_how\_brains\_make\_moral\_judgments.html" title="ted.com" rel="nofollow">TED talk</a> [ted.com] from last year on this subject from the lead researcher, Rebecca Saxe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a TED talk [ ted.com ] from last year on this subject from the lead researcher , Rebecca Saxe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a TED talk [ted.com] from last year on this subject from the lead researcher, Rebecca Saxe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676514</id>
	<title>Re:Military use, ahoy!</title>
	<author>digital photo</author>
	<datestamp>1269940260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't need to be a psychopath to do something that is immoral if you are convinced it is moral or right.</p><p>Ie, if the helmet demonstrated an ability to reduce PTSD and anxiety/conflict on the battle field, it would be morally responsible to do so, as it would represent an improvement in military morale as well as better post-military life transition.</p><p>The fact that it also impacts one's moral judgement might be good/bad depending on how one sees the situation. Ie, are soldiers' conflicted emotions causing a delay in reaction time? Is this resulting in more lives lost? If the helmet were to reduce reaction times and also reduce loss of life, then the use of said helmet would be moral.</p><p>It all depends on the perspective....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need to be a psychopath to do something that is immoral if you are convinced it is moral or right.Ie , if the helmet demonstrated an ability to reduce PTSD and anxiety/conflict on the battle field , it would be morally responsible to do so , as it would represent an improvement in military morale as well as better post-military life transition.The fact that it also impacts one 's moral judgement might be good/bad depending on how one sees the situation .
Ie , are soldiers ' conflicted emotions causing a delay in reaction time ?
Is this resulting in more lives lost ?
If the helmet were to reduce reaction times and also reduce loss of life , then the use of said helmet would be moral.It all depends on the perspective... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need to be a psychopath to do something that is immoral if you are convinced it is moral or right.Ie, if the helmet demonstrated an ability to reduce PTSD and anxiety/conflict on the battle field, it would be morally responsible to do so, as it would represent an improvement in military morale as well as better post-military life transition.The fact that it also impacts one's moral judgement might be good/bad depending on how one sees the situation.
Ie, are soldiers' conflicted emotions causing a delay in reaction time?
Is this resulting in more lives lost?
If the helmet were to reduce reaction times and also reduce loss of life, then the use of said helmet would be moral.It all depends on the perspective....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675770</id>
	<title>Where's the 'ON' switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the magnetic field applied to this region *only* turns our morals "Off"?  Okay maybe "Down" on the  volume button would be a better analogy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the magnetic field applied to this region * only * turns our morals " Off " ?
Okay maybe " Down " on the volume button would be a better analogy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the magnetic field applied to this region *only* turns our morals "Off"?
Okay maybe "Down" on the  volume button would be a better analogy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678860</id>
	<title>Re:Morality?</title>
	<author>lbates\_35476</author>
	<datestamp>1269949080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how do you feel when someone breaks in line in front of you?  They bring you no harm, but I'd be willing to bet that you get upset because it is morally wrong.<br> <br>

And, unless you are a vegetarian, you narrow your definition of "bring harm to another" to only humans?<br> <br>

And if you are not a vegetarian, I'd bet that even you get angry if you see someone being cruel to an animal.  But wait, you then you have to redefine "harm" (killing for food is not harm, but cruelty is). <br> <br>

I contend that you haven't thought your "idea of morality" all the way through.  Morality isn't "what you decide", it is in the very fabric of the universe and was put there by the Creator.<br> <br>

Your definition is an attempt to make yourself the center of the universe (you'll be the judge of what is moral).  Original sin began because man (and woman)  tried out this exact same "thought process".  I know God said not to, but eating the apple couldn't possibly bring any "harm to another" now could it?  Look where that got us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how do you feel when someone breaks in line in front of you ?
They bring you no harm , but I 'd be willing to bet that you get upset because it is morally wrong .
And , unless you are a vegetarian , you narrow your definition of " bring harm to another " to only humans ?
And if you are not a vegetarian , I 'd bet that even you get angry if you see someone being cruel to an animal .
But wait , you then you have to redefine " harm " ( killing for food is not harm , but cruelty is ) .
I contend that you have n't thought your " idea of morality " all the way through .
Morality is n't " what you decide " , it is in the very fabric of the universe and was put there by the Creator .
Your definition is an attempt to make yourself the center of the universe ( you 'll be the judge of what is moral ) .
Original sin began because man ( and woman ) tried out this exact same " thought process " .
I know God said not to , but eating the apple could n't possibly bring any " harm to another " now could it ?
Look where that got us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how do you feel when someone breaks in line in front of you?
They bring you no harm, but I'd be willing to bet that you get upset because it is morally wrong.
And, unless you are a vegetarian, you narrow your definition of "bring harm to another" to only humans?
And if you are not a vegetarian, I'd bet that even you get angry if you see someone being cruel to an animal.
But wait, you then you have to redefine "harm" (killing for food is not harm, but cruelty is).
I contend that you haven't thought your "idea of morality" all the way through.
Morality isn't "what you decide", it is in the very fabric of the universe and was put there by the Creator.
Your definition is an attempt to make yourself the center of the universe (you'll be the judge of what is moral).
Original sin began because man (and woman)  tried out this exact same "thought process".
I know God said not to, but eating the apple couldn't possibly bring any "harm to another" now could it?
Look where that got us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679256</id>
	<title>Now think about this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...all the magnetic fields we pass through in our daily, technologically advanced, modern lives...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...all the magnetic fields we pass through in our daily , technologically advanced , modern lives.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...all the magnetic fields we pass through in our daily, technologically advanced, modern lives...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676012</id>
	<title>Re:The difference?</title>
	<author>gibson042</author>
	<datestamp>1269981840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is what divides murder from attempted murder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is what divides murder from attempted murder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is what divides murder from attempted murder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679332</id>
	<title>How is this different than beer?</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1269951540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't this just mean that strong magnetic fields can induce current which impairs the functioning of the brain, in a way similar to alcohol and other intoxicants?</p><p>The use of intoxicants--including non-chemical ones--can develop into addiction, the very definition of which seems to include a "loss of moral compass".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't this just mean that strong magnetic fields can induce current which impairs the functioning of the brain , in a way similar to alcohol and other intoxicants ? The use of intoxicants--including non-chemical ones--can develop into addiction , the very definition of which seems to include a " loss of moral compass " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't this just mean that strong magnetic fields can induce current which impairs the functioning of the brain, in a way similar to alcohol and other intoxicants?The use of intoxicants--including non-chemical ones--can develop into addiction, the very definition of which seems to include a "loss of moral compass".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675952</id>
	<title>Re:Morality or empathy?</title>
	<author>royler</author>
	<datestamp>1269981660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>either way, just a few more steps down to the dollhouse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>either way , just a few more steps down to the dollhouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>either way, just a few more steps down to the dollhouse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675818</id>
	<title>Moral compass doesn't point north</title>
	<author>tpstigers</author>
	<datestamp>1269981120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole study strikes me as being rather foolish.  Did they change anyone's morals?  No.  They just slightly altered their responses, which shortly thereafter returned to baseline.  I'm more inclined to think this had nothing at all to do with morals and everything to do with volunteers who were slightly confused because of the magnetic fields that had been run through their brains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole study strikes me as being rather foolish .
Did they change anyone 's morals ?
No. They just slightly altered their responses , which shortly thereafter returned to baseline .
I 'm more inclined to think this had nothing at all to do with morals and everything to do with volunteers who were slightly confused because of the magnetic fields that had been run through their brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole study strikes me as being rather foolish.
Did they change anyone's morals?
No.  They just slightly altered their responses, which shortly thereafter returned to baseline.
I'm more inclined to think this had nothing at all to do with morals and everything to do with volunteers who were slightly confused because of the magnetic fields that had been run through their brains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678710</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1269948420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Adultery is immoral (and harmful), yet there's no law against it in my state.</p></div><p>Wait, isn't breaking one's marriage vow a contract violation? Or is that whole part of law screwed up beyond repair by now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adultery is immoral ( and harmful ) , yet there 's no law against it in my state.Wait , is n't breaking one 's marriage vow a contract violation ?
Or is that whole part of law screwed up beyond repair by now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adultery is immoral (and harmful), yet there's no law against it in my state.Wait, isn't breaking one's marriage vow a contract violation?
Or is that whole part of law screwed up beyond repair by now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675794</id>
	<title>Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1269981000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a gravimagnetic monopole but unfortunately gravimagnetism is so weak I'm too embarrassed to show it off to my friends. "There, can't you sense that? A spinning force... it feels like you should start dancing... no, huh?" I just keep it in a drawer.<br> <br>My friends run the political spectrum although only half are even familiar with gravimagnetic dipoles, much less monopoles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a gravimagnetic monopole but unfortunately gravimagnetism is so weak I 'm too embarrassed to show it off to my friends .
" There , ca n't you sense that ?
A spinning force... it feels like you should start dancing... no , huh ?
" I just keep it in a drawer .
My friends run the political spectrum although only half are even familiar with gravimagnetic dipoles , much less monopoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a gravimagnetic monopole but unfortunately gravimagnetism is so weak I'm too embarrassed to show it off to my friends.
"There, can't you sense that?
A spinning force... it feels like you should start dancing... no, huh?
" I just keep it in a drawer.
My friends run the political spectrum although only half are even familiar with gravimagnetic dipoles, much less monopoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676180</id>
	<title>Management</title>
	<author>kirill.s</author>
	<datestamp>1269982380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I misread the headline as:<br>
<b>Management</b> Can Sway Man's Moral Compass<br> <br>
And thought... now how is that news?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I misread the headline as : Management Can Sway Man 's Moral Compass And thought... now how is that news ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I misread the headline as:
Management Can Sway Man's Moral Compass 
And thought... now how is that news?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676614</id>
	<title>Re:Alcohol</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1269940560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that why the earth keeps pulling me to the ground when I drink?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that why the earth keeps pulling me to the ground when I drink ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that why the earth keeps pulling me to the ground when I drink?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31687740</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1270050600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Smoking pot harms no one... Adultery is immoral (and harmful)...</p><blockquote><div><p>Thank you for neatly disproving your own argument. Both of these things are pure opinion</p></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>Just like it's my opinion that the sky is blue at noon when the sun is shining. I can point to harm adultery causes, you can't point to any harm smoking pot causes.</p><p>However, intent and outcome do matter. If Sally thinks the poison is sugar, she hasn't done anything wrong; mistakes aren't immoral. If she knows she's poisoning somebody there can be no argument that that IS wrong.</p><p>If, otoh, both parties are OK with the other screwing around, I don't see how you could classify that as adultery.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Smoking pot harms no one... Adultery is immoral ( and harmful ) ...Thank you for neatly disproving your own argument .
Both of these things are pure opinion Just like it 's my opinion that the sky is blue at noon when the sun is shining .
I can point to harm adultery causes , you ca n't point to any harm smoking pot causes.However , intent and outcome do matter .
If Sally thinks the poison is sugar , she has n't done anything wrong ; mistakes are n't immoral .
If she knows she 's poisoning somebody there can be no argument that that IS wrong.If , otoh , both parties are OK with the other screwing around , I do n't see how you could classify that as adultery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smoking pot harms no one... Adultery is immoral (and harmful)...Thank you for neatly disproving your own argument.
Both of these things are pure opinion Just like it's my opinion that the sky is blue at noon when the sun is shining.
I can point to harm adultery causes, you can't point to any harm smoking pot causes.However, intent and outcome do matter.
If Sally thinks the poison is sugar, she hasn't done anything wrong; mistakes aren't immoral.
If she knows she's poisoning somebody there can be no argument that that IS wrong.If, otoh, both parties are OK with the other screwing around, I don't see how you could classify that as adultery.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31693866</id>
	<title>Re:As explained on NPR this morning</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1270032300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another example they gave was that people with their RTPJ disrupted would say that accidentally poisoning someone was worse than attempting to poison someone and failing.</p></div><p>That&rsquo;s a bad example. Someone dying IS worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another example they gave was that people with their RTPJ disrupted would say that accidentally poisoning someone was worse than attempting to poison someone and failing.That    s a bad example .
Someone dying IS worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another example they gave was that people with their RTPJ disrupted would say that accidentally poisoning someone was worse than attempting to poison someone and failing.That’s a bad example.
Someone dying IS worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675976</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>digitalcowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269981720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what passes for "science" at MIT now?  (We already know that anything can pass for a headline at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.)</p><p>The researcher himself, as quoted in the story <em>summary</em> on <em>Slashdot</em>, debunks what the Slashdot headline advertises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what passes for " science " at MIT now ?
( We already know that anything can pass for a headline at / .
) The researcher himself , as quoted in the story summary on Slashdot , debunks what the Slashdot headline advertises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what passes for "science" at MIT now?
(We already know that anything can pass for a headline at /.
)The researcher himself, as quoted in the story summary on Slashdot, debunks what the Slashdot headline advertises.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679342</id>
	<title>Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then what say you about mexico?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then what say you about mexico ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then what say you about mexico?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31690692</id>
	<title>Actually, on further reflection</title>
	<author>pugugly</author>
	<datestamp>1270062780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big question is what were peoples opinions about their decisions after the magnetic field was removed?</p><p>I ask because I've had experience with people that have had mental disorders that were treatable with the proper drugs, and it has always fascinated me - when people were on the medicine, they were fine. When they were off the meds, they were irrational.</p><p>The really interesting thing is that, once back on their meds, they will recall their actions while off the medication as having been perfect rational and justifiable at the time - the brain will rationalize the past behavior, even though it is other wise okay now.</p><p>So, does *that* happen in this instance - do people, once no longer under the influence of the field, realize they were making a bad decision, or do they rationalize it?</p><p>Pug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big question is what were peoples opinions about their decisions after the magnetic field was removed ? I ask because I 've had experience with people that have had mental disorders that were treatable with the proper drugs , and it has always fascinated me - when people were on the medicine , they were fine .
When they were off the meds , they were irrational.The really interesting thing is that , once back on their meds , they will recall their actions while off the medication as having been perfect rational and justifiable at the time - the brain will rationalize the past behavior , even though it is other wise okay now.So , does * that * happen in this instance - do people , once no longer under the influence of the field , realize they were making a bad decision , or do they rationalize it ? Pug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big question is what were peoples opinions about their decisions after the magnetic field was removed?I ask because I've had experience with people that have had mental disorders that were treatable with the proper drugs, and it has always fascinated me - when people were on the medicine, they were fine.
When they were off the meds, they were irrational.The really interesting thing is that, once back on their meds, they will recall their actions while off the medication as having been perfect rational and justifiable at the time - the brain will rationalize the past behavior, even though it is other wise okay now.So, does *that* happen in this instance - do people, once no longer under the influence of the field, realize they were making a bad decision, or do they rationalize it?Pug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676276</id>
	<title>Re:Morality?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1269982680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What does this mean for someone like me, who lives life by my own idea of morality, which is "Do whatever you want as long as you bring no harm to another"?</i></p><p>I hope you mean "as long as to the best of my knowledge it will bring no harm".  As in, you decide if something is moral *before* doing it and seeing what the outcome was.</p><p>I mean I'm assuming you don't think it's moral to line the sidewalk outside your house with claymore mines, as long as nobody actually triggers them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does this mean for someone like me , who lives life by my own idea of morality , which is " Do whatever you want as long as you bring no harm to another " ? I hope you mean " as long as to the best of my knowledge it will bring no harm " .
As in , you decide if something is moral * before * doing it and seeing what the outcome was.I mean I 'm assuming you do n't think it 's moral to line the sidewalk outside your house with claymore mines , as long as nobody actually triggers them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does this mean for someone like me, who lives life by my own idea of morality, which is "Do whatever you want as long as you bring no harm to another"?I hope you mean "as long as to the best of my knowledge it will bring no harm".
As in, you decide if something is moral *before* doing it and seeing what the outcome was.I mean I'm assuming you don't think it's moral to line the sidewalk outside your house with claymore mines, as long as nobody actually triggers them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676700</id>
	<title>Magneto!</title>
	<author>h3llfish</author>
	<datestamp>1269940800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought that Magneto's "magnetic personality" power was stupid.  How does having control over electro-magnetism give you control over other people's actions?  Stupid!  <i>Or is it?!?</i>  Next they'll publish a story about radio-active spiders and their numerous health benefits...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought that Magneto 's " magnetic personality " power was stupid .
How does having control over electro-magnetism give you control over other people 's actions ?
Stupid ! Or is it ? ! ?
Next they 'll publish a story about radio-active spiders and their numerous health benefits.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought that Magneto's "magnetic personality" power was stupid.
How does having control over electro-magnetism give you control over other people's actions?
Stupid!  Or is it?!?
Next they'll publish a story about radio-active spiders and their numerous health benefits...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576</id>
	<title>Morality or empathy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the MIT article: "they found that the subjects' ability to make moral judgments <em>that require an understanding of other people's intentions</em>".</p><p>They don't appear to have claimed a general change to moral judgments of all types.  They're saying that people were less able to make moral judgments that involved modeling someone else's internal state.</p><p>What it sounds like to <em>me</em> is, someone found humanity's Asperger switch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the MIT article : " they found that the subjects ' ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people 's intentions " .They do n't appear to have claimed a general change to moral judgments of all types .
They 're saying that people were less able to make moral judgments that involved modeling someone else 's internal state.What it sounds like to me is , someone found humanity 's Asperger switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the MIT article: "they found that the subjects' ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people's intentions".They don't appear to have claimed a general change to moral judgments of all types.
They're saying that people were less able to make moral judgments that involved modeling someone else's internal state.What it sounds like to me is, someone found humanity's Asperger switch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675904</id>
	<title>Franz Mesmer,</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1269981480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal\_magnetism" title="wikipedia.org">is that you?</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>I smell an uptick of premature April Foolery. Or a damn fine Ig Nobel candidate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that you ?
[ wikipedia.org ] I smell an uptick of premature April Foolery .
Or a damn fine Ig Nobel candidate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> is that you?
[wikipedia.org] I smell an uptick of premature April Foolery.
Or a damn fine Ig Nobel candidate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681504</id>
	<title>I hear you.  Sad people don't correlate with EMF.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea I have had bad posture and all kinds of things at odds with interacting with people that don't appreciate my attention to details.  I have the opposite of what many might sense as ADD/ADHD and Aspergers at the same time.  It happened about 6 years ago when I was given vaccines all at once to "catch-up" with what they said I was behind on getting.  They gave me MMR, Polio, Flu Shot, and a couple others and it amounted to tripple the vaccination that I was supposed to get in such durration.  Within a month, my heart stopped twice and I was compelled by impulses that I was surrounced and being yelled-at by a drill instructor pissed-off at me.  For the next couple years, my math skills suffered and I left the computer repair business.  My health took a hit with my Immune System nearly giving-out, and just because of that I've gotten all kinds of Candida imbalance and yeast infections just from touching anything without gloves, and every cold and flue virus has hit my four times in the year rather while everyone else at the most gets twice.  I've blacked-out half a dozen times, and when I've defended people from causing physical harm to anyone I know, a slight bump on the shoulder sends me to the sand despite being a foot taller(6'8") and 250 pounds of fitness.</p><p>I will not sue the HMO that did this to me, and I will not advocate any procedure other than to get your nutrition and 30 minutes of oxygenation and aerobic activity with lymphnode massage therapy.  Doctors kill 15 million people every year just from medication mistakes and don't get a ticket from OSHA, yet they send USDA after all the organic farmers and non-GMO'd heirloom plantations that grow actual food for good will.</p><p>My health has gotten so bad that I've decided to live on the sea in my boat, and I can't afford even the 300 a month for a marina slip.  I do my computer consulting work by satellite on the boat and it barely gets me by with maintenance and necessaries on this craft.  I don't know why people don't correlate EMF cell-phone damage to this story's topic of mental state modification by Magnetism, but I must say that the trend of Slashdot is verry little to do with the Scientific Method.  I can't use Cell Phones because my Immune System is fragile enough that the EMF from the Phone a couple feet from me causes acne and fungal infections to begin taking root: it suppresses the immune system, so I use a satellite dish on the boat hull with some stabilizers for when I can deploy it on a nearby marker for a stable link.  My health has only improved because I'm in a cleaner environment for my immune system to rebuild itself, and I have an excellent view of the Catalina Island Channel and have been able to get aquainted with the woman of my dreams since seeing her 15 years ago at the same highschool but this time she is receptive to a nerd after becoming a nerd herself (she hates jocks now, finally).</p><p>In some ways, I don't know what to say because it's worked-out for the better.  But for others not as fortunate as me, and I'm the McGuyver that just barely got by on a shoe string, I hope someone bombs every f*cking doctor office in a HMO.  They are nothing but a bunch of drug dealers, and if you are injurred they always bring up a non-disclosed form they say you or I waived liability to.  Compensation for damages is not good enough.  It's not the vaccine that kills people, it's the delivery mechanism and the GMO'd vaccine virus itself: if they don't want everyone get sick at the same time, then let me pick a week of the year where I can get sick when I'm ready somewhere else.  If the vaccine is a nail, they're hitting it into my head with a sledge-hammer for Christ's sake.  Let me get sick on my own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea I have had bad posture and all kinds of things at odds with interacting with people that do n't appreciate my attention to details .
I have the opposite of what many might sense as ADD/ADHD and Aspergers at the same time .
It happened about 6 years ago when I was given vaccines all at once to " catch-up " with what they said I was behind on getting .
They gave me MMR , Polio , Flu Shot , and a couple others and it amounted to tripple the vaccination that I was supposed to get in such durration .
Within a month , my heart stopped twice and I was compelled by impulses that I was surrounced and being yelled-at by a drill instructor pissed-off at me .
For the next couple years , my math skills suffered and I left the computer repair business .
My health took a hit with my Immune System nearly giving-out , and just because of that I 've gotten all kinds of Candida imbalance and yeast infections just from touching anything without gloves , and every cold and flue virus has hit my four times in the year rather while everyone else at the most gets twice .
I 've blacked-out half a dozen times , and when I 've defended people from causing physical harm to anyone I know , a slight bump on the shoulder sends me to the sand despite being a foot taller ( 6'8 " ) and 250 pounds of fitness.I will not sue the HMO that did this to me , and I will not advocate any procedure other than to get your nutrition and 30 minutes of oxygenation and aerobic activity with lymphnode massage therapy .
Doctors kill 15 million people every year just from medication mistakes and do n't get a ticket from OSHA , yet they send USDA after all the organic farmers and non-GMO 'd heirloom plantations that grow actual food for good will.My health has gotten so bad that I 've decided to live on the sea in my boat , and I ca n't afford even the 300 a month for a marina slip .
I do my computer consulting work by satellite on the boat and it barely gets me by with maintenance and necessaries on this craft .
I do n't know why people do n't correlate EMF cell-phone damage to this story 's topic of mental state modification by Magnetism , but I must say that the trend of Slashdot is verry little to do with the Scientific Method .
I ca n't use Cell Phones because my Immune System is fragile enough that the EMF from the Phone a couple feet from me causes acne and fungal infections to begin taking root : it suppresses the immune system , so I use a satellite dish on the boat hull with some stabilizers for when I can deploy it on a nearby marker for a stable link .
My health has only improved because I 'm in a cleaner environment for my immune system to rebuild itself , and I have an excellent view of the Catalina Island Channel and have been able to get aquainted with the woman of my dreams since seeing her 15 years ago at the same highschool but this time she is receptive to a nerd after becoming a nerd herself ( she hates jocks now , finally ) .In some ways , I do n't know what to say because it 's worked-out for the better .
But for others not as fortunate as me , and I 'm the McGuyver that just barely got by on a shoe string , I hope someone bombs every f * cking doctor office in a HMO .
They are nothing but a bunch of drug dealers , and if you are injurred they always bring up a non-disclosed form they say you or I waived liability to .
Compensation for damages is not good enough .
It 's not the vaccine that kills people , it 's the delivery mechanism and the GMO 'd vaccine virus itself : if they do n't want everyone get sick at the same time , then let me pick a week of the year where I can get sick when I 'm ready somewhere else .
If the vaccine is a nail , they 're hitting it into my head with a sledge-hammer for Christ 's sake .
Let me get sick on my own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea I have had bad posture and all kinds of things at odds with interacting with people that don't appreciate my attention to details.
I have the opposite of what many might sense as ADD/ADHD and Aspergers at the same time.
It happened about 6 years ago when I was given vaccines all at once to "catch-up" with what they said I was behind on getting.
They gave me MMR, Polio, Flu Shot, and a couple others and it amounted to tripple the vaccination that I was supposed to get in such durration.
Within a month, my heart stopped twice and I was compelled by impulses that I was surrounced and being yelled-at by a drill instructor pissed-off at me.
For the next couple years, my math skills suffered and I left the computer repair business.
My health took a hit with my Immune System nearly giving-out, and just because of that I've gotten all kinds of Candida imbalance and yeast infections just from touching anything without gloves, and every cold and flue virus has hit my four times in the year rather while everyone else at the most gets twice.
I've blacked-out half a dozen times, and when I've defended people from causing physical harm to anyone I know, a slight bump on the shoulder sends me to the sand despite being a foot taller(6'8") and 250 pounds of fitness.I will not sue the HMO that did this to me, and I will not advocate any procedure other than to get your nutrition and 30 minutes of oxygenation and aerobic activity with lymphnode massage therapy.
Doctors kill 15 million people every year just from medication mistakes and don't get a ticket from OSHA, yet they send USDA after all the organic farmers and non-GMO'd heirloom plantations that grow actual food for good will.My health has gotten so bad that I've decided to live on the sea in my boat, and I can't afford even the 300 a month for a marina slip.
I do my computer consulting work by satellite on the boat and it barely gets me by with maintenance and necessaries on this craft.
I don't know why people don't correlate EMF cell-phone damage to this story's topic of mental state modification by Magnetism, but I must say that the trend of Slashdot is verry little to do with the Scientific Method.
I can't use Cell Phones because my Immune System is fragile enough that the EMF from the Phone a couple feet from me causes acne and fungal infections to begin taking root: it suppresses the immune system, so I use a satellite dish on the boat hull with some stabilizers for when I can deploy it on a nearby marker for a stable link.
My health has only improved because I'm in a cleaner environment for my immune system to rebuild itself, and I have an excellent view of the Catalina Island Channel and have been able to get aquainted with the woman of my dreams since seeing her 15 years ago at the same highschool but this time she is receptive to a nerd after becoming a nerd herself (she hates jocks now, finally).In some ways, I don't know what to say because it's worked-out for the better.
But for others not as fortunate as me, and I'm the McGuyver that just barely got by on a shoe string, I hope someone bombs every f*cking doctor office in a HMO.
They are nothing but a bunch of drug dealers, and if you are injurred they always bring up a non-disclosed form they say you or I waived liability to.
Compensation for damages is not good enough.
It's not the vaccine that kills people, it's the delivery mechanism and the GMO'd vaccine virus itself: if they don't want everyone get sick at the same time, then let me pick a week of the year where I can get sick when I'm ready somewhere else.
If the vaccine is a nail, they're hitting it into my head with a sledge-hammer for Christ's sake.
Let me get sick on my own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688890</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1270055220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious as to why you think smoking pot is immoral?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious as to why you think smoking pot is immoral ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious as to why you think smoking pot is immoral?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31680808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688604</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Full Metal Jackass</author>
	<datestamp>1270053840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the same from the summary. What is morally wrong that doesn't cause harm? But having read the article, I think that the distinction was between actions that caused harm and actions intended to cause harm:</p><p>"The confusion in the brain made it harder for subjects to interpret the boyfriend's intent, said Young, and instead made the subjects focus solely on the situation's outcome."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the same from the summary .
What is morally wrong that does n't cause harm ?
But having read the article , I think that the distinction was between actions that caused harm and actions intended to cause harm : " The confusion in the brain made it harder for subjects to interpret the boyfriend 's intent , said Young , and instead made the subjects focus solely on the situation 's outcome .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the same from the summary.
What is morally wrong that doesn't cause harm?
But having read the article, I think that the distinction was between actions that caused harm and actions intended to cause harm:"The confusion in the brain made it harder for subjects to interpret the boyfriend's intent, said Young, and instead made the subjects focus solely on the situation's outcome.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683924</id>
	<title>Re:Morality or empathy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270066380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I have Asperger's Syndrome)</p></div><p>Let me guess: you're self-diagnosed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I have Asperger 's Syndrome ) Let me guess : you 're self-diagnosed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I have Asperger's Syndrome)Let me guess: you're self-diagnosed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675756</id>
	<title>Implications for detection?</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1269980940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Discovering that morality is localized is rather amazing.  I wonder if this knowledge will eventually be used to determined how active that area is (fMRI?) to quantize a person's integrity.  So, for example, to become a judge someone must score above a certain level.  Or, more scarily, criminals might undergo forcible treatment to enhance this area.  OTOH, this raises the question of whether someone has the right to be immoral or if we as a society can exclude the selfish "cheaters" that get ahead by being anti-social.<br> <br>

I'd imagine the first line of business would be to turn this into some pseudoscientific rubbish that an employer can use to vet job applicants.  There's certainly precedent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Discovering that morality is localized is rather amazing .
I wonder if this knowledge will eventually be used to determined how active that area is ( fMRI ?
) to quantize a person 's integrity .
So , for example , to become a judge someone must score above a certain level .
Or , more scarily , criminals might undergo forcible treatment to enhance this area .
OTOH , this raises the question of whether someone has the right to be immoral or if we as a society can exclude the selfish " cheaters " that get ahead by being anti-social .
I 'd imagine the first line of business would be to turn this into some pseudoscientific rubbish that an employer can use to vet job applicants .
There 's certainly precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Discovering that morality is localized is rather amazing.
I wonder if this knowledge will eventually be used to determined how active that area is (fMRI?
) to quantize a person's integrity.
So, for example, to become a judge someone must score above a certain level.
Or, more scarily, criminals might undergo forcible treatment to enhance this area.
OTOH, this raises the question of whether someone has the right to be immoral or if we as a society can exclude the selfish "cheaters" that get ahead by being anti-social.
I'd imagine the first line of business would be to turn this into some pseudoscientific rubbish that an employer can use to vet job applicants.
There's certainly precedent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675594</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1269980340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Legitimately? Many decades. This research shows that there indeed is some sort of modular physiological aspect to our conception of morality. But beyond that, it tells us almost nothing about how it might affect behavior in a legal sense. In the future this kind of research will require a fundamental change in our judicial system, but not yet.

Now if we are talking about quack defenses, I bet someone has already tried it. Sadly the lack of scientific knowledge in jurors and judges makes it such that they are unlikely to be able to understand the issue beyond the false experts and fancy lawyer talkin'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legitimately ?
Many decades .
This research shows that there indeed is some sort of modular physiological aspect to our conception of morality .
But beyond that , it tells us almost nothing about how it might affect behavior in a legal sense .
In the future this kind of research will require a fundamental change in our judicial system , but not yet .
Now if we are talking about quack defenses , I bet someone has already tried it .
Sadly the lack of scientific knowledge in jurors and judges makes it such that they are unlikely to be able to understand the issue beyond the false experts and fancy lawyer talkin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legitimately?
Many decades.
This research shows that there indeed is some sort of modular physiological aspect to our conception of morality.
But beyond that, it tells us almost nothing about how it might affect behavior in a legal sense.
In the future this kind of research will require a fundamental change in our judicial system, but not yet.
Now if we are talking about quack defenses, I bet someone has already tried it.
Sadly the lack of scientific knowledge in jurors and judges makes it such that they are unlikely to be able to understand the issue beyond the false experts and fancy lawyer talkin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675580</id>
	<title>Helm of Opposite Alignment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this is how you make a Helm of Opposite Alignment!</p><p>Lawful Evil, here I come!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is how you make a Helm of Opposite Alignment ! Lawful Evil , here I come !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is how you make a Helm of Opposite Alignment!Lawful Evil, here I come!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677684</id>
	<title>Re:The difference?</title>
	<author>notionalTenacity</author>
	<datestamp>1269944040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves</p></div><p>Short of a Doctorate of Philosophy in Ethics, what's the difference?</p></div><p>I find it a little scary that the difference isn't apparent.

For example, it's morally wrong to put poison in someone's food, even if it later turns out they are immune to the poison and it doesn't cause them any harm.

Its morally wrong to try and blow up a building, even if no one else ever finds out, and you fail in the attempt, because you made a mistake.

These are two clear cut - if simple - situations of actions that don't cause harm, but that are morally wrong in themselves.

Now, you do have to be very careful making legislation which criminalises acts that don't cause obvious harm - in case you end up with thoughtcrime-esque laws.
But that is a separate point from the clearcut issue that concrete actions can be very morally wrong, while not resulting in harm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselvesShort of a Doctorate of Philosophy in Ethics , what 's the difference ? I find it a little scary that the difference is n't apparent .
For example , it 's morally wrong to put poison in someone 's food , even if it later turns out they are immune to the poison and it does n't cause them any harm .
Its morally wrong to try and blow up a building , even if no one else ever finds out , and you fail in the attempt , because you made a mistake .
These are two clear cut - if simple - situations of actions that do n't cause harm , but that are morally wrong in themselves .
Now , you do have to be very careful making legislation which criminalises acts that do n't cause obvious harm - in case you end up with thoughtcrime-esque laws .
But that is a separate point from the clearcut issue that concrete actions can be very morally wrong , while not resulting in harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselvesShort of a Doctorate of Philosophy in Ethics, what's the difference?I find it a little scary that the difference isn't apparent.
For example, it's morally wrong to put poison in someone's food, even if it later turns out they are immune to the poison and it doesn't cause them any harm.
Its morally wrong to try and blow up a building, even if no one else ever finds out, and you fail in the attempt, because you made a mistake.
These are two clear cut - if simple - situations of actions that don't cause harm, but that are morally wrong in themselves.
Now, you do have to be very careful making legislation which criminalises acts that don't cause obvious harm - in case you end up with thoughtcrime-esque laws.
But that is a separate point from the clearcut issue that concrete actions can be very morally wrong, while not resulting in harm.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675696</id>
	<title>I'm sure I've seen this before</title>
	<author>Risha</author>
	<datestamp>1269980760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't this <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1256266/synopsis" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">an episode of the Mentalist</a> [imdb.com]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't this an episode of the Mentalist [ imdb.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't this an episode of the Mentalist [imdb.com]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675842</id>
	<title>"Moral center" or just "center"?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1269981240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did they do to distinguish scrambling of moral judgement from simple scrambling of judgement?  Seems to me that people who are simply having trouble thinking clearly are likely to make these mistakes.  Someone whose ability to think at all is impaired might very well assert that the guy who let his girl walk across the unsafe bridge was blameless because they lost track of the fact that he knew it was unsafe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did they do to distinguish scrambling of moral judgement from simple scrambling of judgement ?
Seems to me that people who are simply having trouble thinking clearly are likely to make these mistakes .
Someone whose ability to think at all is impaired might very well assert that the guy who let his girl walk across the unsafe bridge was blameless because they lost track of the fact that he knew it was unsafe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did they do to distinguish scrambling of moral judgement from simple scrambling of judgement?
Seems to me that people who are simply having trouble thinking clearly are likely to make these mistakes.
Someone whose ability to think at all is impaired might very well assert that the guy who let his girl walk across the unsafe bridge was blameless because they lost track of the fact that he knew it was unsafe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681102</id>
	<title>the title should read</title>
	<author>barry\_allen</author>
	<datestamp>1269959460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Magnetism Can Alter the Left side of the brain"

Thats where the frontal lobe is located and where reasoning and logic come from.

Thats what helps us choose right from wrong.

Sounds like MIT researchers reversed the brains polarity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Magnetism Can Alter the Left side of the brain " Thats where the frontal lobe is located and where reasoning and logic come from .
Thats what helps us choose right from wrong .
Sounds like MIT researchers reversed the brains polarity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Magnetism Can Alter the Left side of the brain"

Thats where the frontal lobe is located and where reasoning and logic come from.
Thats what helps us choose right from wrong.
Sounds like MIT researchers reversed the brains polarity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678706</id>
	<title>Re:Causation</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269948420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bravo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678578</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269947700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.</i></p><p>That smells like a tautology.  If you judge something to be morally wrong based on whether or not it causes harm, then all morally wrong things will, by stipulation, cause harm.</p><p>But values are relative.  Is it immoral to eat meat?  Do you think that causing harm to animals doesn't qualify as "causing harm?"</p><p>Is it immoral to cause harm to yourself?  What if smoking pot causes harm to the self, by destroying the lungs.  Would that be immoral?  What if other people suffer as a result of the harm you cause to yourself (like emotional anguish felt by loved ones, or higher insurance premiums shared by everyone because of your higher medical costs)?</p><p>Is it immoral to buy goods that were made in sweat shops?  Does forcing people to work 20 hours a day for too little money to buy food cause harm?  Does refusing to buy products from developing countries (who need the income from exports, and who cannot progress beyond the need for sweat shops without it) cause harm?  If <i>either</i> option causes harm, making it logically impossible to avoid picking one, are you just morally wrong no matter what you do?</p><p><i>Adultery is immoral (and harmful), </i></p><p>You don't think this may be a bit circumstantial?  If both members of a marriage are the type who like to swing, and they both agree to swing, and they only swing with people who know they are married and have no problem with this....is it still morally wrong?</p><p>If two people don't want to get married, and take precautions against disease and unwanted pregnancy, is their mutually-consensual sex morally wrong?</p><p>I don't think so.  Some religious teachings might say so.  Some people who do not like to swing and who are intimidated by the thought that anyone would ever want to swing (or who have some very immature ideas about how human emotions actually work) might think so.  But there are plenty of happily-married swingers who don't think so.</p><p>Does it cause harm?  No more so than forcing someone to remain celibate because his/her spouse has lost all interest in sex causes harm (and that DOES cause terrible emotional anguish and potentially can ruin a marriage).</p><p>Morality isn't always as simple as we would like it to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm.That smells like a tautology .
If you judge something to be morally wrong based on whether or not it causes harm , then all morally wrong things will , by stipulation , cause harm.But values are relative .
Is it immoral to eat meat ?
Do you think that causing harm to animals does n't qualify as " causing harm ?
" Is it immoral to cause harm to yourself ?
What if smoking pot causes harm to the self , by destroying the lungs .
Would that be immoral ?
What if other people suffer as a result of the harm you cause to yourself ( like emotional anguish felt by loved ones , or higher insurance premiums shared by everyone because of your higher medical costs ) ? Is it immoral to buy goods that were made in sweat shops ?
Does forcing people to work 20 hours a day for too little money to buy food cause harm ?
Does refusing to buy products from developing countries ( who need the income from exports , and who can not progress beyond the need for sweat shops without it ) cause harm ?
If either option causes harm , making it logically impossible to avoid picking one , are you just morally wrong no matter what you do ? Adultery is immoral ( and harmful ) , You do n't think this may be a bit circumstantial ?
If both members of a marriage are the type who like to swing , and they both agree to swing , and they only swing with people who know they are married and have no problem with this....is it still morally wrong ? If two people do n't want to get married , and take precautions against disease and unwanted pregnancy , is their mutually-consensual sex morally wrong ? I do n't think so .
Some religious teachings might say so .
Some people who do not like to swing and who are intimidated by the thought that anyone would ever want to swing ( or who have some very immature ideas about how human emotions actually work ) might think so .
But there are plenty of happily-married swingers who do n't think so.Does it cause harm ?
No more so than forcing someone to remain celibate because his/her spouse has lost all interest in sex causes harm ( and that DOES cause terrible emotional anguish and potentially can ruin a marriage ) .Morality is n't always as simple as we would like it to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.That smells like a tautology.
If you judge something to be morally wrong based on whether or not it causes harm, then all morally wrong things will, by stipulation, cause harm.But values are relative.
Is it immoral to eat meat?
Do you think that causing harm to animals doesn't qualify as "causing harm?
"Is it immoral to cause harm to yourself?
What if smoking pot causes harm to the self, by destroying the lungs.
Would that be immoral?
What if other people suffer as a result of the harm you cause to yourself (like emotional anguish felt by loved ones, or higher insurance premiums shared by everyone because of your higher medical costs)?Is it immoral to buy goods that were made in sweat shops?
Does forcing people to work 20 hours a day for too little money to buy food cause harm?
Does refusing to buy products from developing countries (who need the income from exports, and who cannot progress beyond the need for sweat shops without it) cause harm?
If either option causes harm, making it logically impossible to avoid picking one, are you just morally wrong no matter what you do?Adultery is immoral (and harmful), You don't think this may be a bit circumstantial?
If both members of a marriage are the type who like to swing, and they both agree to swing, and they only swing with people who know they are married and have no problem with this....is it still morally wrong?If two people don't want to get married, and take precautions against disease and unwanted pregnancy, is their mutually-consensual sex morally wrong?I don't think so.
Some religious teachings might say so.
Some people who do not like to swing and who are intimidated by the thought that anyone would ever want to swing (or who have some very immature ideas about how human emotions actually work) might think so.
But there are plenty of happily-married swingers who don't think so.Does it cause harm?
No more so than forcing someone to remain celibate because his/her spouse has lost all interest in sex causes harm (and that DOES cause terrible emotional anguish and potentially can ruin a marriage).Morality isn't always as simple as we would like it to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679058</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?</p></div><p>How about <i>attempting</i> to cause harm, unsuccessfully?  Is that morally better or worse than actually causing harm, but accidentally?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm .
Did I read the wrong FA ? How about attempting to cause harm , unsuccessfully ?
Is that morally better or worse than actually causing harm , but accidentally ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.
Did I read the wrong FA?How about attempting to cause harm, unsuccessfully?
Is that morally better or worse than actually causing harm, but accidentally?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676324</id>
	<title>Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1269939660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like the +10 Helmet of Relatavistic Morality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like the + 10 Helmet of Relatavistic Morality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like the +10 Helmet of Relatavistic Morality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676220</id>
	<title>Moral compass?</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1269982500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the tea party logo should be a great big magnet....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the tea party logo should be a great big magnet... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the tea party logo should be a great big magnet....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675454</id>
	<title>Good news!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1269979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, if I can just convince my date to climb into an MRI machine, I can finally score with her!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if I can just convince my date to climb into an MRI machine , I can finally score with her !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if I can just convince my date to climb into an MRI machine, I can finally score with her!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678876</id>
	<title>Re:Causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I see your point, I find this refreshing.  It is a nice change of pace to *not* see a study immediately claiming causation where it is possible that none exists. I've seen too many studies causing that X causes Y by applying treatment X to a group of subjects otherwise predisposed to Y, then claiming that the elevated proportion of subjects showing Y demonstrates that X causes Y.<br>

And while this is a designed experiment, I think they are making the non-causal point because the brain is a complex and relatively poorly understood organ.  We don't really even know all the variables, so we obviously can't control for them all.  Causality is a likely explanation, but I don't know if we can say so with statistical significance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I see your point , I find this refreshing .
It is a nice change of pace to * not * see a study immediately claiming causation where it is possible that none exists .
I 've seen too many studies causing that X causes Y by applying treatment X to a group of subjects otherwise predisposed to Y , then claiming that the elevated proportion of subjects showing Y demonstrates that X causes Y . And while this is a designed experiment , I think they are making the non-causal point because the brain is a complex and relatively poorly understood organ .
We do n't really even know all the variables , so we obviously ca n't control for them all .
Causality is a likely explanation , but I do n't know if we can say so with statistical significance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I see your point, I find this refreshing.
It is a nice change of pace to *not* see a study immediately claiming causation where it is possible that none exists.
I've seen too many studies causing that X causes Y by applying treatment X to a group of subjects otherwise predisposed to Y, then claiming that the elevated proportion of subjects showing Y demonstrates that X causes Y.

And while this is a designed experiment, I think they are making the non-causal point because the brain is a complex and relatively poorly understood organ.
We don't really even know all the variables, so we obviously can't control for them all.
Causality is a likely explanation, but I don't know if we can say so with statistical significance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31696954</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1270052580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, there were 2 girls and a cup...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , there were 2 girls and a cup.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, there were 2 girls and a cup...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675558</id>
	<title>Moral on different parts of Earth.</title>
	<author>brunokummel</author>
	<datestamp>1269980160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering the variations on magnetism on the surface of Earth, I wonder if the differences of moral in different regions of the globe has anything to do with the variation on the magnetism on the planet.  <br> <br>
if it has, i'm getting out of here, unless of course a big earthquake fixes the problem!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the variations on magnetism on the surface of Earth , I wonder if the differences of moral in different regions of the globe has anything to do with the variation on the magnetism on the planet .
if it has , i 'm getting out of here , unless of course a big earthquake fixes the problem !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the variations on magnetism on the surface of Earth, I wonder if the differences of moral in different regions of the globe has anything to do with the variation on the magnetism on the planet.
if it has, i'm getting out of here, unless of course a big earthquake fixes the problem!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675876</id>
	<title>As explained on NPR this morning</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1269981360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Person A accidentally breaks five tea cups while cleaning. Person B purposefully breaks one tea cup.</p><p>Most people would say that B's actions were "more wrong" than A's.<br>People who had their RTPJ disrupted said that A was "more wrong" because of the extent of the damage.</p><p>Another example they gave was that people with their RTPJ disrupted would say that accidentally poisoning someone was worse than attempting to poison someone and failing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Person A accidentally breaks five tea cups while cleaning .
Person B purposefully breaks one tea cup.Most people would say that B 's actions were " more wrong " than A 's.People who had their RTPJ disrupted said that A was " more wrong " because of the extent of the damage.Another example they gave was that people with their RTPJ disrupted would say that accidentally poisoning someone was worse than attempting to poison someone and failing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Person A accidentally breaks five tea cups while cleaning.
Person B purposefully breaks one tea cup.Most people would say that B's actions were "more wrong" than A's.People who had their RTPJ disrupted said that A was "more wrong" because of the extent of the damage.Another example they gave was that people with their RTPJ disrupted would say that accidentally poisoning someone was worse than attempting to poison someone and failing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675440</id>
	<title>Military use, ahoy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see a future where they'll have strong electromagnets embedded in military helmets, to ease everyone through the more morally dubious adventures overseas.  Of course, in order to invent the helmet, you'd have to be already morally compromised, which would require an existing helmet...  Or just a psychopath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a future where they 'll have strong electromagnets embedded in military helmets , to ease everyone through the more morally dubious adventures overseas .
Of course , in order to invent the helmet , you 'd have to be already morally compromised , which would require an existing helmet... Or just a psychopath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a future where they'll have strong electromagnets embedded in military helmets, to ease everyone through the more morally dubious adventures overseas.
Of course, in order to invent the helmet, you'd have to be already morally compromised, which would require an existing helmet...  Or just a psychopath.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675452</id>
	<title>The real results of the experiment</title>
	<author>Captain Spam</author>
	<datestamp>1269979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After months of grueling research bombarding test subjects with all manner of loud and annoying electromagnetic devices and being told to lie <i>just right</i> so that the readings aren't disrupted at all, the test subjects all said they wanted to kill all the researchers in a variety of gruesome ways and didn't have any moral conundrum with doing so.  As there were no noticeable flaws in the experiment, the researchers concluded that magnetism can sway the moral compasses of human beings.  Case closed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After months of grueling research bombarding test subjects with all manner of loud and annoying electromagnetic devices and being told to lie just right so that the readings are n't disrupted at all , the test subjects all said they wanted to kill all the researchers in a variety of gruesome ways and did n't have any moral conundrum with doing so .
As there were no noticeable flaws in the experiment , the researchers concluded that magnetism can sway the moral compasses of human beings .
Case closed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After months of grueling research bombarding test subjects with all manner of loud and annoying electromagnetic devices and being told to lie just right so that the readings aren't disrupted at all, the test subjects all said they wanted to kill all the researchers in a variety of gruesome ways and didn't have any moral conundrum with doing so.
As there were no noticeable flaws in the experiment, the researchers concluded that magnetism can sway the moral compasses of human beings.
Case closed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675718</id>
	<title>April Fools?</title>
	<author>Accersitus</author>
	<datestamp>1269980820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it April first already?
Sounds like someone got their date wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it April first already ?
Sounds like someone got their date wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it April first already?
Sounds like someone got their date wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676434</id>
	<title>I, for one, welcome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269940020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>our new magnetic overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>our new magnetic overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our new magnetic overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</id>
	<title>Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1269979680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm &mdash; not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.</p></div><p>What distinction are they making between the two? There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm    not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.What distinction are they making between the two ?
There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.What distinction are they making between the two?
There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676670</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>Philosinfinity</author>
	<datestamp>1269940680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this case, while it would be absurd to say that there could be reverse causality where the decrease in morality could cause a magnetic field in the area of the brain they are studying, it would not be absurd to state that the magnetism against that area of the brain causes something else which causes the drop in moral understanding.  Outside the context of the cause in the middle, the magnetism itself would not cause the change in moral understanding.  At least that's the way I am reading it.  Overall, I think such a disclaimer should precede all scientific and statistical conclusions, as there is never true proof of causality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , while it would be absurd to say that there could be reverse causality where the decrease in morality could cause a magnetic field in the area of the brain they are studying , it would not be absurd to state that the magnetism against that area of the brain causes something else which causes the drop in moral understanding .
Outside the context of the cause in the middle , the magnetism itself would not cause the change in moral understanding .
At least that 's the way I am reading it .
Overall , I think such a disclaimer should precede all scientific and statistical conclusions , as there is never true proof of causality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, while it would be absurd to say that there could be reverse causality where the decrease in morality could cause a magnetic field in the area of the brain they are studying, it would not be absurd to state that the magnetism against that area of the brain causes something else which causes the drop in moral understanding.
Outside the context of the cause in the middle, the magnetism itself would not cause the change in moral understanding.
At least that's the way I am reading it.
Overall, I think such a disclaimer should precede all scientific and statistical conclusions, as there is never true proof of causality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31682416</id>
	<title>that explains everything!</title>
	<author>JRHelgeson</author>
	<datestamp>1269966840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boobs are magnetic - that explains everything then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boobs are magnetic - that explains everything then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boobs are magnetic - that explains everything then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675644</id>
	<title>implications</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1269980520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Implications are interesting:</p><p>1. An army of morally removed individuals, everyone gets an electromagnet attached with a mora-meter, the computer adjusts the necessary dose based on the current situation.  So now we see a woman and a child on the battlefield, mora-meter is reading 7.8 on the M-Scale, there is the target of opportunity right behind them and no time to react.  Increasing the field strength.  Mora-meter is at 1.89.  Directive: shoot through the civilians.  Outcome: 1 target down, 2 civilian casualties.</p><p>2. Cchecking the computer, the audience is reading a collective 6.5.  Increasing the m-field strength.  The meter is at 2.  And god said: stone the homosexuals....  Increase the m-field.  Pass the collection plate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Implications are interesting : 1 .
An army of morally removed individuals , everyone gets an electromagnet attached with a mora-meter , the computer adjusts the necessary dose based on the current situation .
So now we see a woman and a child on the battlefield , mora-meter is reading 7.8 on the M-Scale , there is the target of opportunity right behind them and no time to react .
Increasing the field strength .
Mora-meter is at 1.89 .
Directive : shoot through the civilians .
Outcome : 1 target down , 2 civilian casualties.2 .
Cchecking the computer , the audience is reading a collective 6.5 .
Increasing the m-field strength .
The meter is at 2 .
And god said : stone the homosexuals.... Increase the m-field .
Pass the collection plate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Implications are interesting:1.
An army of morally removed individuals, everyone gets an electromagnet attached with a mora-meter, the computer adjusts the necessary dose based on the current situation.
So now we see a woman and a child on the battlefield, mora-meter is reading 7.8 on the M-Scale, there is the target of opportunity right behind them and no time to react.
Increasing the field strength.
Mora-meter is at 1.89.
Directive: shoot through the civilians.
Outcome: 1 target down, 2 civilian casualties.2.
Cchecking the computer, the audience is reading a collective 6.5.
Increasing the m-field strength.
The meter is at 2.
And god said: stone the homosexuals....  Increase the m-field.
Pass the collection plate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678278</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269946560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Arguably, when buy drugs you *generally* are supplying some sort of violent criminal element thus making it immoral. I suppose it's no worse then buying clothes made with near (actual?)-slave labor though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguably , when buy drugs you * generally * are supplying some sort of violent criminal element thus making it immoral .
I suppose it 's no worse then buying clothes made with near ( actual ?
) -slave labor though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguably, when buy drugs you *generally* are supplying some sort of violent criminal element thus making it immoral.
I suppose it's no worse then buying clothes made with near (actual?
)-slave labor though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678826</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1269948960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It doesn't sound like a sound defense. Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality; there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example. Whether you're talking about Druids, Christians, Jews, Hindus, any religion, none have any injunction against smoking pot. Smoking pot harms no one. The marijuana laws were passed by lies (see the propaganda movie "Reefer Madness"). Laws are subjective; they are NOT based on morality. Adultery is immoral (and harmful), yet there's no law against it in my state.</p><p>What confuses me, (and I RTFA just because it did confuse me, and TFA gave no answer) is what kinds of moral delimmas did they present?</p><p> <i>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.</i> </p><p>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?</p></div><p>All i know is i got to the smoking pot part and well, um, what?</p><p>oh ya, smoke pot!</p><p>good advice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't sound like a sound defense .
Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality ; there 's nothing immoral about smoking pot , for example .
Whether you 're talking about Druids , Christians , Jews , Hindus , any religion , none have any injunction against smoking pot .
Smoking pot harms no one .
The marijuana laws were passed by lies ( see the propaganda movie " Reefer Madness " ) .
Laws are subjective ; they are NOT based on morality .
Adultery is immoral ( and harmful ) , yet there 's no law against it in my state.What confuses me , ( and I RTFA just because it did confuse me , and TFA gave no answer ) is what kinds of moral delimmas did they present ?
The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves .
I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm .
Did I read the wrong FA ? All i know is i got to the smoking pot part and well , um , what ? oh ya , smoke pot ! good advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't sound like a sound defense.
Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality; there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example.
Whether you're talking about Druids, Christians, Jews, Hindus, any religion, none have any injunction against smoking pot.
Smoking pot harms no one.
The marijuana laws were passed by lies (see the propaganda movie "Reefer Madness").
Laws are subjective; they are NOT based on morality.
Adultery is immoral (and harmful), yet there's no law against it in my state.What confuses me, (and I RTFA just because it did confuse me, and TFA gave no answer) is what kinds of moral delimmas did they present?
The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.
I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.
Did I read the wrong FA?All i know is i got to the smoking pot part and well, um, what?oh ya, smoke pot!good advice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31682392</id>
	<title>Annoying article</title>
	<author>Mudd Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1269966660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The primary <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/11/0914826107.full.pdf+html" title="pnas.org">PNAS article</a> [pnas.org] is pretty annoying IMHO. One of the main purposes of publishing research is to describe the methods so that others can reproduce it. In the Materials and Methods section, the only description of the fields applied refer to using 70\% intensity setting of a commercially available product, the Magstim SuperRapid, which does not even appear on the <a href="http://www.magstim.com/index.html" title="magstim.com"> manufacturer's website</a> [magstim.com]. Also, the orientation of the field is described only by referring to the orientation of the handle of the device. I would expect a published article to describe the actual field intensity, orientation, and some description of field geometry.</p><p>

Guessing that the SuperRapid is equivalent to the <a href="http://www.magstim.com/magneticstimulators/rapidrate/10108.html" title="magstim.com">Rapid</a> [magstim.com], they are applying 70\%*3.5 Tesla = ~ 2.5 Tesla. Holy cow, that's a lot. For comparison, Earth's field is 0.0005 Tesla.

</p><p>I assume that no one really cares what happens when you apply these kind of fields to the brain given that one doesn't experience anything like this in normal situations. Is the point that we can learn about brain function by poking it in various ways, and this is just a good way to poke it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary PNAS article [ pnas.org ] is pretty annoying IMHO .
One of the main purposes of publishing research is to describe the methods so that others can reproduce it .
In the Materials and Methods section , the only description of the fields applied refer to using 70 \ % intensity setting of a commercially available product , the Magstim SuperRapid , which does not even appear on the manufacturer 's website [ magstim.com ] .
Also , the orientation of the field is described only by referring to the orientation of the handle of the device .
I would expect a published article to describe the actual field intensity , orientation , and some description of field geometry .
Guessing that the SuperRapid is equivalent to the Rapid [ magstim.com ] , they are applying 70 \ % * 3.5 Tesla = ~ 2.5 Tesla .
Holy cow , that 's a lot .
For comparison , Earth 's field is 0.0005 Tesla .
I assume that no one really cares what happens when you apply these kind of fields to the brain given that one does n't experience anything like this in normal situations .
Is the point that we can learn about brain function by poking it in various ways , and this is just a good way to poke it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary PNAS article [pnas.org] is pretty annoying IMHO.
One of the main purposes of publishing research is to describe the methods so that others can reproduce it.
In the Materials and Methods section, the only description of the fields applied refer to using 70\% intensity setting of a commercially available product, the Magstim SuperRapid, which does not even appear on the  manufacturer's website [magstim.com].
Also, the orientation of the field is described only by referring to the orientation of the handle of the device.
I would expect a published article to describe the actual field intensity, orientation, and some description of field geometry.
Guessing that the SuperRapid is equivalent to the Rapid [magstim.com], they are applying 70\%*3.5 Tesla = ~ 2.5 Tesla.
Holy cow, that's a lot.
For comparison, Earth's field is 0.0005 Tesla.
I assume that no one really cares what happens when you apply these kind of fields to the brain given that one doesn't experience anything like this in normal situations.
Is the point that we can learn about brain function by poking it in various ways, and this is just a good way to poke it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678264</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>J3llym4n</author>
	<datestamp>1269946500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to have to disagree with you here and saw that laws are at least in part based upon morality. You give the example of smoking pot as not being immorral. One of the arguments against it is that it could cause mental health problems in later life and of course smoking it will cause damage to your lungs. There are also the claims/arguments that smoking pot leads to harder drugs which leads to crime (note that I'm not arguing whether these claims are suppoted by any reliable evidence or not just what is claimed). Considering the potential for these harmful effects would it not be immoral to smoke it because it firstly increases medical care costs to you AND others in society as well as costs incurred fighting any associated crime and is therefore immoral because it harms others in society (once again I'm not arguing for the evidence just linking the moral and legal arguments).
The other example you gave was adultery which, while not illegal in your state is still illegal in several countries around the world, mostly Islamic and according to wikipedia still technically illegal in Michigan, Wisconsin and Maryland.
So I'd say that things that are considered immoral are often then made illegal which means that morality does have an effect on legality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to have to disagree with you here and saw that laws are at least in part based upon morality .
You give the example of smoking pot as not being immorral .
One of the arguments against it is that it could cause mental health problems in later life and of course smoking it will cause damage to your lungs .
There are also the claims/arguments that smoking pot leads to harder drugs which leads to crime ( note that I 'm not arguing whether these claims are suppoted by any reliable evidence or not just what is claimed ) .
Considering the potential for these harmful effects would it not be immoral to smoke it because it firstly increases medical care costs to you AND others in society as well as costs incurred fighting any associated crime and is therefore immoral because it harms others in society ( once again I 'm not arguing for the evidence just linking the moral and legal arguments ) .
The other example you gave was adultery which , while not illegal in your state is still illegal in several countries around the world , mostly Islamic and according to wikipedia still technically illegal in Michigan , Wisconsin and Maryland .
So I 'd say that things that are considered immoral are often then made illegal which means that morality does have an effect on legality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to have to disagree with you here and saw that laws are at least in part based upon morality.
You give the example of smoking pot as not being immorral.
One of the arguments against it is that it could cause mental health problems in later life and of course smoking it will cause damage to your lungs.
There are also the claims/arguments that smoking pot leads to harder drugs which leads to crime (note that I'm not arguing whether these claims are suppoted by any reliable evidence or not just what is claimed).
Considering the potential for these harmful effects would it not be immoral to smoke it because it firstly increases medical care costs to you AND others in society as well as costs incurred fighting any associated crime and is therefore immoral because it harms others in society (once again I'm not arguing for the evidence just linking the moral and legal arguments).
The other example you gave was adultery which, while not illegal in your state is still illegal in several countries around the world, mostly Islamic and according to wikipedia still technically illegal in Michigan, Wisconsin and Maryland.
So I'd say that things that are considered immoral are often then made illegal which means that morality does have an effect on legality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677334</id>
	<title>Re:Good news!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269942660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It only affects morals, not taste. What you need to do is to fill her with beer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only affects morals , not taste .
What you need to do is to fill her with beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only affects morals, not taste.
What you need to do is to fill her with beer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675738</id>
	<title>Also in the news..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269980880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congress just ordered all floors on Capitol Hill to be replaced with strong magnets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress just ordered all floors on Capitol Hill to be replaced with strong magnets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress just ordered all floors on Capitol Hill to be replaced with strong magnets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676126</id>
	<title>Save the GOP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269982260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now we just need to keep magnets away from the GOPs.  It really does explain a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now we just need to keep magnets away from the GOPs .
It really does explain a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now we just need to keep magnets away from the GOPs.
It really does explain a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678180</id>
	<title>permanently remove the subjects' morals</title>
	<author>Kanasta</author>
	<datestamp>1269946200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" The scientists didn't permanently remove the subjects' moral sensibilities "</p><p>I think they mean " The scientists<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/don't think/ they permanently removed the subjects' moral sensibilities "<br>If ever there was a question about ethical experiments...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The scientists did n't permanently remove the subjects ' moral sensibilities " I think they mean " The scientists /do n't think/ they permanently removed the subjects ' moral sensibilities " If ever there was a question about ethical experiments.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" The scientists didn't permanently remove the subjects' moral sensibilities "I think they mean " The scientists /don't think/ they permanently removed the subjects' moral sensibilities "If ever there was a question about ethical experiments...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683154</id>
	<title>Moral judgment?  Why not just all judgment?</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1269972900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article says they only asked them moral judgment questions.  How do you we know that reasoning skills in general weren't affected?  If the person couldn't reason through the situation as well they'd be more likely make the "wrong" choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says they only asked them moral judgment questions .
How do you we know that reasoning skills in general were n't affected ?
If the person could n't reason through the situation as well they 'd be more likely make the " wrong " choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says they only asked them moral judgment questions.
How do you we know that reasoning skills in general weren't affected?
If the person couldn't reason through the situation as well they'd be more likely make the "wrong" choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675724</id>
	<title>if memory serves ...</title>
	<author>Gitcho</author>
	<datestamp>1269980820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>i remember hearing about something one could drink that would achieve similar results<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... with the added benefit of making everyone look better<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>i remember hearing about something one could drink that would achieve similar results ... with the added benefit of making everyone look better .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i remember hearing about something one could drink that would achieve similar results ... with the added benefit of making everyone look better ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678590</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269947820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.  It jams.  No harm, no foul, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger .
It jams .
No harm , no foul , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.
It jams.
No harm, no foul, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31697210</id>
	<title>Congressional Morals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270055040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, so how big is the magnet under Capitol hill?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , so how big is the magnet under Capitol hill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, so how big is the magnet under Capitol hill?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676964</id>
	<title>Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269941580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BBC article seems to characterize these test subjects as unable to correctly assess risk.
<br> <br>
That's cognitively quite different from assessing risk but not caring.  On the basis of what's been presented here, I don't see any data which support the claim that moral reasoning is diminished in these subjects.
<br> <br>
It turns out that the problem is not in the research, but in oversimplification by the news media.  If you want a more accurate idea of what's going on, take a look at the original papers by <a href="http://www.mit.edu/~lyoung/Site/Publications.html" title="mit.edu">Young et al</a> [mit.edu].  For example:<blockquote><div><p>Participants even judged attempted harms
(e.g., attempting, but failing to poison someone) as more permissible than accidental harms (e.g.,
accidentally poisoning someone).</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC article seems to characterize these test subjects as unable to correctly assess risk .
That 's cognitively quite different from assessing risk but not caring .
On the basis of what 's been presented here , I do n't see any data which support the claim that moral reasoning is diminished in these subjects .
It turns out that the problem is not in the research , but in oversimplification by the news media .
If you want a more accurate idea of what 's going on , take a look at the original papers by Young et al [ mit.edu ] .
For example : Participants even judged attempted harms ( e.g. , attempting , but failing to poison someone ) as more permissible than accidental harms ( e.g. , accidentally poisoning someone ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC article seems to characterize these test subjects as unable to correctly assess risk.
That's cognitively quite different from assessing risk but not caring.
On the basis of what's been presented here, I don't see any data which support the claim that moral reasoning is diminished in these subjects.
It turns out that the problem is not in the research, but in oversimplification by the news media.
If you want a more accurate idea of what's going on, take a look at the original papers by Young et al [mit.edu].
For example:Participants even judged attempted harms
(e.g., attempting, but failing to poison someone) as more permissible than accidental harms (e.g.,
accidentally poisoning someone).

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675678</id>
	<title>Doesn't change much</title>
	<author>digitaldrunkenmonk</author>
	<datestamp>1269980760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A small change in moral response, and even then, it isn't as if they turned off the moral center. Looks like they just caused the subjects to focus on the effect of the action than the reasons behind it. It's almost like they muffled some of the higher reasoning functions behind morality and changed the focus from "The person's action resulted in [x], though he didn't mean it to" to "The person's action resulted in [x]".</p><p>They didn't kill morality; they hastened the response to a morally vague event. Black and white, no grey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A small change in moral response , and even then , it is n't as if they turned off the moral center .
Looks like they just caused the subjects to focus on the effect of the action than the reasons behind it .
It 's almost like they muffled some of the higher reasoning functions behind morality and changed the focus from " The person 's action resulted in [ x ] , though he did n't mean it to " to " The person 's action resulted in [ x ] " .They did n't kill morality ; they hastened the response to a morally vague event .
Black and white , no grey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A small change in moral response, and even then, it isn't as if they turned off the moral center.
Looks like they just caused the subjects to focus on the effect of the action than the reasons behind it.
It's almost like they muffled some of the higher reasoning functions behind morality and changed the focus from "The person's action resulted in [x], though he didn't mean it to" to "The person's action resulted in [x]".They didn't kill morality; they hastened the response to a morally vague event.
Black and white, no grey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675574</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>SOdhner</author>
	<datestamp>1269980220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Short answer is that they are less likely to try and take intentions into account.  If you don't warn someone that the door they're about to open is booby-trapped but then the bomb is a dud... well, no harm no foul.  Whereas without the scrambling we would still say it is wrong to not warn someone about that whole immenant death thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Short answer is that they are less likely to try and take intentions into account .
If you do n't warn someone that the door they 're about to open is booby-trapped but then the bomb is a dud... well , no harm no foul .
Whereas without the scrambling we would still say it is wrong to not warn someone about that whole immenant death thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short answer is that they are less likely to try and take intentions into account.
If you don't warn someone that the door they're about to open is booby-trapped but then the bomb is a dud... well, no harm no foul.
Whereas without the scrambling we would still say it is wrong to not warn someone about that whole immenant death thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31686122</id>
	<title>Re:As explained on NPR this morning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270043160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it affects people's ability to understand intentions.</p><p>How is this the same as their "moral compass"?  They still knew not to do things that harm others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it affects people 's ability to understand intentions.How is this the same as their " moral compass " ?
They still knew not to do things that harm others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it affects people's ability to understand intentions.How is this the same as their "moral compass"?
They still knew not to do things that harm others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676442</id>
	<title>Causation</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1269940080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another."</p><p>What is it with Slashdotters' completely fucked-in-the-head understanding of correlation vs. causation? The article says <i>exactly the opposite</i> of this summary!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Recent fMRI studies of moral judgment find fascinating correlations, but Young et al usher in a new era by moving beyond correlation to causation," says Sinnott-Armstrong, who was not involved in this research.</p></div><p>And that was completely obvious without even needing to see the article anyway. This is a designed experiment. Designed experiments establish causation. (See Weiss, <i>Introductory Statistics</i> 7E, p. 22, et. al.) Obviously a person's moral judgements aren't causing the magnet that you're switching on-and-off to work. For chrissake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Young points out that the study was correlation ; their work only links the RTJP , morality and magnetic fields , but does n't definitively prove that one causes another .
" What is it with Slashdotters ' completely fucked-in-the-head understanding of correlation vs. causation ? The article says exactly the opposite of this summary !
" Recent fMRI studies of moral judgment find fascinating correlations , but Young et al usher in a new era by moving beyond correlation to causation , " says Sinnott-Armstrong , who was not involved in this research.And that was completely obvious without even needing to see the article anyway .
This is a designed experiment .
Designed experiments establish causation .
( See Weiss , Introductory Statistics 7E , p. 22 , et .
al. ) Obviously a person 's moral judgements are n't causing the magnet that you 're switching on-and-off to work .
For chrissake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another.
"What is it with Slashdotters' completely fucked-in-the-head understanding of correlation vs. causation? The article says exactly the opposite of this summary!
"Recent fMRI studies of moral judgment find fascinating correlations, but Young et al usher in a new era by moving beyond correlation to causation," says Sinnott-Armstrong, who was not involved in this research.And that was completely obvious without even needing to see the article anyway.
This is a designed experiment.
Designed experiments establish causation.
(See Weiss, Introductory Statistics 7E, p. 22, et.
al.) Obviously a person's moral judgements aren't causing the magnet that you're switching on-and-off to work.
For chrissake.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688154</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1270052040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One of the arguments against it is that it could cause mental health problems in later life</i></p><p>A fallacy that has not been demonstrated by any reputable study.</p><p><i>and of course smoking it will cause damage to your lungs.</i></p><p>You don't have to smoke it, eating it is as effective.</p><p><i>There are also the claims/arguments that smoking pot leads to harder drugs</i></p><p>It's the drug laws themselves that cause this; people who sell other drugs also sell pot.</p><p><i>Considering the potential for these harmful effects would it not be immoral to smoke it because it firstly increases medical care costs to you AND others in society</i></p><p>A recent study showed that cigarette smokers who also smoke pot have a far lesser incidence of cancers than those who only smoke tobacco, and a statistically insignifigant lower cancer rate than nonsmokers. Which brings up another point -- if smoking pot is immoral, cigarette smoking would be far more immoral since it kills almost every user, yet it's completely legal.</p><p>And, even if there were harm associated with pot smoking (which I've never seen evidence of, scientific or otherwise), how is harming yourself immoral?</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...as well as costs incurred fighting any associated crime </i></p><p>There is no associated crime incurred with potsmoking. We're not talking about heroin here, nobody steals to support a "pot habit".</p><p>Here's a hint: the partnership for a drug-free America is about as biased a source as you can get. They flat out lie. Their web site says pot causes cancer, despite the fact that not only do studies show it doesn't, but may even prevent cancer in those who only smoke pot, and lowers the incidence of cancers in cigarette smokers.</p><p><i>The other example you gave was adultery which, while not illegal in your state is still illegal in several countries around the world, mostly Islamic and according to wikipedia still technically illegal in Michigan, Wisconsin and Maryland.</i></p><p>Which begs its own question, if it's illegal in one state but not another, how can it have anything to do with morality if law is based on morality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the arguments against it is that it could cause mental health problems in later lifeA fallacy that has not been demonstrated by any reputable study.and of course smoking it will cause damage to your lungs.You do n't have to smoke it , eating it is as effective.There are also the claims/arguments that smoking pot leads to harder drugsIt 's the drug laws themselves that cause this ; people who sell other drugs also sell pot.Considering the potential for these harmful effects would it not be immoral to smoke it because it firstly increases medical care costs to you AND others in societyA recent study showed that cigarette smokers who also smoke pot have a far lesser incidence of cancers than those who only smoke tobacco , and a statistically insignifigant lower cancer rate than nonsmokers .
Which brings up another point -- if smoking pot is immoral , cigarette smoking would be far more immoral since it kills almost every user , yet it 's completely legal.And , even if there were harm associated with pot smoking ( which I 've never seen evidence of , scientific or otherwise ) , how is harming yourself immoral ?
...as well as costs incurred fighting any associated crime There is no associated crime incurred with potsmoking .
We 're not talking about heroin here , nobody steals to support a " pot habit " .Here 's a hint : the partnership for a drug-free America is about as biased a source as you can get .
They flat out lie .
Their web site says pot causes cancer , despite the fact that not only do studies show it does n't , but may even prevent cancer in those who only smoke pot , and lowers the incidence of cancers in cigarette smokers.The other example you gave was adultery which , while not illegal in your state is still illegal in several countries around the world , mostly Islamic and according to wikipedia still technically illegal in Michigan , Wisconsin and Maryland.Which begs its own question , if it 's illegal in one state but not another , how can it have anything to do with morality if law is based on morality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the arguments against it is that it could cause mental health problems in later lifeA fallacy that has not been demonstrated by any reputable study.and of course smoking it will cause damage to your lungs.You don't have to smoke it, eating it is as effective.There are also the claims/arguments that smoking pot leads to harder drugsIt's the drug laws themselves that cause this; people who sell other drugs also sell pot.Considering the potential for these harmful effects would it not be immoral to smoke it because it firstly increases medical care costs to you AND others in societyA recent study showed that cigarette smokers who also smoke pot have a far lesser incidence of cancers than those who only smoke tobacco, and a statistically insignifigant lower cancer rate than nonsmokers.
Which brings up another point -- if smoking pot is immoral, cigarette smoking would be far more immoral since it kills almost every user, yet it's completely legal.And, even if there were harm associated with pot smoking (which I've never seen evidence of, scientific or otherwise), how is harming yourself immoral?
...as well as costs incurred fighting any associated crime There is no associated crime incurred with potsmoking.
We're not talking about heroin here, nobody steals to support a "pot habit".Here's a hint: the partnership for a drug-free America is about as biased a source as you can get.
They flat out lie.
Their web site says pot causes cancer, despite the fact that not only do studies show it doesn't, but may even prevent cancer in those who only smoke pot, and lowers the incidence of cancers in cigarette smokers.The other example you gave was adultery which, while not illegal in your state is still illegal in several countries around the world, mostly Islamic and according to wikipedia still technically illegal in Michigan, Wisconsin and Maryland.Which begs its own question, if it's illegal in one state but not another, how can it have anything to do with morality if law is based on morality?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678158</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269946140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.</i></p><p>Really?  What about attempted murder?</p><p>The study compares scenarios like this: you're in the break room at a chemical plant and pour your friend some coffee and put some "sugar" in it:</p><p>1) In one case, you got the powder from the sugar jar and quite reasonably believed it was sugar, but it was actually poison, and your friend dies.</p><p>2) In the other case, you got the powder from a poison jar and were trying to kill your friend, but the powder was actually sugar and your friend lives.</p><p>Most adults consider #1 unfortunate in outcome but morally OK because of intent, and #2 fortunate in outcome but morally wrong because of intent.</p><p>Those who are unable to comprehend intent (young children, people with brain damage, and experimental subjects with that part of their brain temporarily shut down with a powerful magnet) judge these scenarios the opposite way -- they look at morality only by the outcome, not the intent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't think of anything that 's morally wrong that does n't cause harm.Really ?
What about attempted murder ? The study compares scenarios like this : you 're in the break room at a chemical plant and pour your friend some coffee and put some " sugar " in it : 1 ) In one case , you got the powder from the sugar jar and quite reasonably believed it was sugar , but it was actually poison , and your friend dies.2 ) In the other case , you got the powder from a poison jar and were trying to kill your friend , but the powder was actually sugar and your friend lives.Most adults consider # 1 unfortunate in outcome but morally OK because of intent , and # 2 fortunate in outcome but morally wrong because of intent.Those who are unable to comprehend intent ( young children , people with brain damage , and experimental subjects with that part of their brain temporarily shut down with a powerful magnet ) judge these scenarios the opposite way -- they look at morality only by the outcome , not the intent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.Really?
What about attempted murder?The study compares scenarios like this: you're in the break room at a chemical plant and pour your friend some coffee and put some "sugar" in it:1) In one case, you got the powder from the sugar jar and quite reasonably believed it was sugar, but it was actually poison, and your friend dies.2) In the other case, you got the powder from a poison jar and were trying to kill your friend, but the powder was actually sugar and your friend lives.Most adults consider #1 unfortunate in outcome but morally OK because of intent, and #2 fortunate in outcome but morally wrong because of intent.Those who are unable to comprehend intent (young children, people with brain damage, and experimental subjects with that part of their brain temporarily shut down with a powerful magnet) judge these scenarios the opposite way -- they look at morality only by the outcome, not the intent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676306</id>
	<title>Correlation...</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1269939600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another."</p></div> </blockquote><p>Yea, right, because not questioning people may cause a strong magnetic field around one's head... People are so fast to jump to conclusions based on correlation, why did the news report that it is just a correlation when there is no way* it can't imply causation? Looks like some uninformed journalist just read the wikipedia article on logic falacies.</p><p>* Except for a flawed study, but that possibility is always present, and not directly related to the measured correlation..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Young points out that the study was correlation ; their work only links the RTJP , morality and magnetic fields , but does n't definitively prove that one causes another .
" Yea , right , because not questioning people may cause a strong magnetic field around one 's head... People are so fast to jump to conclusions based on correlation , why did the news report that it is just a correlation when there is no way * it ca n't imply causation ?
Looks like some uninformed journalist just read the wikipedia article on logic falacies .
* Except for a flawed study , but that possibility is always present , and not directly related to the measured correlation. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another.
" Yea, right, because not questioning people may cause a strong magnetic field around one's head... People are so fast to jump to conclusions based on correlation, why did the news report that it is just a correlation when there is no way* it can't imply causation?
Looks like some uninformed journalist just read the wikipedia article on logic falacies.
* Except for a flawed study, but that possibility is always present, and not directly related to the measured correlation..
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675598</id>
	<title>Interesting...</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1269980340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we truly do have a moral compass.</p><p>I wonder if it is orientation dependent.  If I face north, am I less likely to punch somebody in the face?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we truly do have a moral compass.I wonder if it is orientation dependent .
If I face north , am I less likely to punch somebody in the face ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we truly do have a moral compass.I wonder if it is orientation dependent.
If I face north, am I less likely to punch somebody in the face?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675502</id>
	<title>I think this works for radiation too...</title>
	<author>rutabagaman</author>
	<datestamp>1269979980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...it would certainly explain why there are so many rude cell phone users<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...it would certainly explain why there are so many rude cell phone users : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it would certainly explain why there are so many rude cell phone users :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675448</id>
	<title>The difference between 'might' and 'did'</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1269979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between 'likely to cause harm' and 'did cause harm.' In one question, they asked if it was morally wrong to let your girlfriend walk across a bridge you knew was dangerous, even if she made it to the other side safely. Magnetized folks thought, 'well she made it across, it's morally okay' while other people were more likely to think it was wrong even if she was unharmed this particular time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between 'likely to cause harm ' and 'did cause harm .
' In one question , they asked if it was morally wrong to let your girlfriend walk across a bridge you knew was dangerous , even if she made it to the other side safely .
Magnetized folks thought , 'well she made it across , it 's morally okay ' while other people were more likely to think it was wrong even if she was unharmed this particular time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between 'likely to cause harm' and 'did cause harm.
' In one question, they asked if it was morally wrong to let your girlfriend walk across a bridge you knew was dangerous, even if she made it to the other side safely.
Magnetized folks thought, 'well she made it across, it's morally okay' while other people were more likely to think it was wrong even if she was unharmed this particular time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678764</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are misinterpreting the verb tense. The question is whether they "caused" (did cause) actual harm as presented, not whether they "caused" (could cause) harm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are misinterpreting the verb tense .
The question is whether they " caused " ( did cause ) actual harm as presented , not whether they " caused " ( could cause ) harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are misinterpreting the verb tense.
The question is whether they "caused" (did cause) actual harm as presented, not whether they "caused" (could cause) harm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675490</id>
	<title>Re:Ah that's it, is it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269979980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pyramids, magnetic fields, all that New Age crap was true after all???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pyramids , magnetic fields , all that New Age crap was true after all ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pyramids, magnetic fields, all that New Age crap was true after all??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675766</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>godless dave</author>
	<datestamp>1269980940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was wondering the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676980</id>
	<title>Time to put on ...</title>
	<author>arielCo</author>
	<datestamp>1269941640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>our <b> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu-metal" title="wikipedia.org">MU-METAL</a> [wikipedia.org] HATS</b>!</htmltext>
<tokenext>our MU-METAL [ wikipedia.org ] HATS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our  MU-METAL [wikipedia.org] HATS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677440</id>
	<title>Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment</title>
	<author>diesel66</author>
	<datestamp>1269943020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawful Good, here I...</p><p>Nah, fuck it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawful Good , here I...Nah , fuck it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawful Good, here I...Nah, fuck it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675636</id>
	<title>Sharks with frigging evil beams?</title>
	<author>Securityemo</author>
	<datestamp>1269980520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, did anyone else hear the summary in the voice of an old-style B-movie narrator, complete with over-the-top sound effects? This might have creepy implications, one battery powered implant and a bit of training and you could turn anyone into an assassin. But what would happen if you did something heinous, and then turned the implant off? Granted, it seems like this only affects people's ability to judge moral intent, the article doesn't mention anything about losing your morality altogether. Although, the flip side of not being able to judge moral intent might be to do stupidly evil things without being able to intuitively understand the consequences? But the subjects judged the moral outcomes accurately based on the consequences, so perhaps this is just a form of artificially induced utilitarianism? Also, they mention "theory of mind", but before you get all worked up this probably does not correspond to any neurological effect of the autism spectrum... Or perhaps any common naturally occurring brain abnormality?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , did anyone else hear the summary in the voice of an old-style B-movie narrator , complete with over-the-top sound effects ?
This might have creepy implications , one battery powered implant and a bit of training and you could turn anyone into an assassin .
But what would happen if you did something heinous , and then turned the implant off ?
Granted , it seems like this only affects people 's ability to judge moral intent , the article does n't mention anything about losing your morality altogether .
Although , the flip side of not being able to judge moral intent might be to do stupidly evil things without being able to intuitively understand the consequences ?
But the subjects judged the moral outcomes accurately based on the consequences , so perhaps this is just a form of artificially induced utilitarianism ?
Also , they mention " theory of mind " , but before you get all worked up this probably does not correspond to any neurological effect of the autism spectrum... Or perhaps any common naturally occurring brain abnormality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, did anyone else hear the summary in the voice of an old-style B-movie narrator, complete with over-the-top sound effects?
This might have creepy implications, one battery powered implant and a bit of training and you could turn anyone into an assassin.
But what would happen if you did something heinous, and then turned the implant off?
Granted, it seems like this only affects people's ability to judge moral intent, the article doesn't mention anything about losing your morality altogether.
Although, the flip side of not being able to judge moral intent might be to do stupidly evil things without being able to intuitively understand the consequences?
But the subjects judged the moral outcomes accurately based on the consequences, so perhaps this is just a form of artificially induced utilitarianism?
Also, they mention "theory of mind", but before you get all worked up this probably does not correspond to any neurological effect of the autism spectrum... Or perhaps any common naturally occurring brain abnormality?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677406</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269942900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is not morally wrong to cheat at a game of solitaire; it is morally wrong to cheat a person.  That is- tricking someone into a deal that they think is even and you know to be slanted your way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is not morally wrong to cheat at a game of solitaire ; it is morally wrong to cheat a person .
That is- tricking someone into a deal that they think is even and you know to be slanted your way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is not morally wrong to cheat at a game of solitaire; it is morally wrong to cheat a person.
That is- tricking someone into a deal that they think is even and you know to be slanted your way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677622</id>
	<title>TMS is brain stimulation not just a magnet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269943680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TMS - transcranial magnetic stimulation is an extremely high magnetic field used to suppress function in an area of the brain. In research, TMS is used to map areas of the brain by "knocking out" an area and testing the subjects to see what function is now missing.  This is no simple magnet but a carefully designed system to inject a significant amount of magnetism into the brain.  The careful design is necessary to inject the magnetism beyond just the outer surface of the brain.  This technique is approved for treating depression when typical drugs are not working.</p><p>Mayo Clinic:  http://www.mayoclinic.org/transcranial-magnetic-stimulation/?mc\_id=comlinkpilot&amp;placement=bottom</p><p>By  the way, the field is so high the patient wears hearing protection due to loud snapping noise from the system.</p><p>Sadly, Discover could have done better with just a google search on TMS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TMS - transcranial magnetic stimulation is an extremely high magnetic field used to suppress function in an area of the brain .
In research , TMS is used to map areas of the brain by " knocking out " an area and testing the subjects to see what function is now missing .
This is no simple magnet but a carefully designed system to inject a significant amount of magnetism into the brain .
The careful design is necessary to inject the magnetism beyond just the outer surface of the brain .
This technique is approved for treating depression when typical drugs are not working.Mayo Clinic : http : //www.mayoclinic.org/transcranial-magnetic-stimulation/ ? mc \ _id = comlinkpilot&amp;placement = bottomBy the way , the field is so high the patient wears hearing protection due to loud snapping noise from the system.Sadly , Discover could have done better with just a google search on TMS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TMS - transcranial magnetic stimulation is an extremely high magnetic field used to suppress function in an area of the brain.
In research, TMS is used to map areas of the brain by "knocking out" an area and testing the subjects to see what function is now missing.
This is no simple magnet but a carefully designed system to inject a significant amount of magnetism into the brain.
The careful design is necessary to inject the magnetism beyond just the outer surface of the brain.
This technique is approved for treating depression when typical drugs are not working.Mayo Clinic:  http://www.mayoclinic.org/transcranial-magnetic-stimulation/?mc\_id=comlinkpilot&amp;placement=bottomBy  the way, the field is so high the patient wears hearing protection due to loud snapping noise from the system.Sadly, Discover could have done better with just a google search on TMS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678852</id>
	<title>Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1269949080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole. the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinion</p><p>so clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservative</p><p>so i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality! and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!</p></div><p>lol, fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>canada is near the north pole , while the usa is closer to the south pole .
the more south you go in the usa in fact , the more conservative the opinionso clearly north pole = liberal , south pole = conservativeso i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole , hide it in an office tower in dallas texas , and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality !
and screw up navigation compasses everywhere ! lol , fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole.
the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinionso clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservativeso i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality!
and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!lol, fail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675378</id>
	<title>Perfection</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1269979620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading the GP on the OP and highlighting the MT on the TP I can only come to one conclusion concerning the subject matter of the article itself.</p><p>I for one welcome out cowboyNeal worshipping Dancing Baby overlords but question their ability to run Earth better then a borg augmented Bill Gates. WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong besides Steve Ballmer throwing a chair and breaking the series of tubes we call the Internet. The only thing worse then a suddenOutbreakOfCommonSense coupled with the release of Duke Nukem Forver is the return of Charlie the Unicorn during a Chocolate Rain. In Soviet Russia Snakes on a plane get You but under the new rulership we are as screwed as the Star Wars Kid getting the hookup with a Wii Fit Girl. If you don't think things can get worse, I am fine with that, OK Go. See if I care. But when Dear Leader forces you to do the Hampster Dance in front of the Saugeen Stripper after the JK Wedding Entrance Dance you will beg to be thrown in with those Snakes on a Plane flying to the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny! I know that CorrelationNoCausation may apply here but I am certain that the new overlords computer will be superior to our current technology, but does it run Linux and can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of their computers! My Epeen is huge thinking about it to the point of a joygasm! Perhaps with their technology we could getyourasstomars in the time it takes to watch the Last Lecture! Imagine the number of Libraries of Congress we could store using their technology! Mod me Troll how dare you you insensitive clod! Now to distract you while I steal the Netcraft report confirming Gentoo Linux is dying. LOOK OVER THERE! OMG!!! PONIES!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the GP on the OP and highlighting the MT on the TP I can only come to one conclusion concerning the subject matter of the article itself.I for one welcome out cowboyNeal worshipping Dancing Baby overlords but question their ability to run Earth better then a borg augmented Bill Gates .
WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong besides Steve Ballmer throwing a chair and breaking the series of tubes we call the Internet .
The only thing worse then a suddenOutbreakOfCommonSense coupled with the release of Duke Nukem Forver is the return of Charlie the Unicorn during a Chocolate Rain .
In Soviet Russia Snakes on a plane get You but under the new rulership we are as screwed as the Star Wars Kid getting the hookup with a Wii Fit Girl .
If you do n't think things can get worse , I am fine with that , OK Go .
See if I care .
But when Dear Leader forces you to do the Hampster Dance in front of the Saugeen Stripper after the JK Wedding Entrance Dance you will beg to be thrown in with those Snakes on a Plane flying to the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny !
I know that CorrelationNoCausation may apply here but I am certain that the new overlords computer will be superior to our current technology , but does it run Linux and can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of their computers !
My Epeen is huge thinking about it to the point of a joygasm !
Perhaps with their technology we could getyourasstomars in the time it takes to watch the Last Lecture !
Imagine the number of Libraries of Congress we could store using their technology !
Mod me Troll how dare you you insensitive clod !
Now to distract you while I steal the Netcraft report confirming Gentoo Linux is dying .
LOOK OVER THERE !
OMG ! ! ! PONIES !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the GP on the OP and highlighting the MT on the TP I can only come to one conclusion concerning the subject matter of the article itself.I for one welcome out cowboyNeal worshipping Dancing Baby overlords but question their ability to run Earth better then a borg augmented Bill Gates.
WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong besides Steve Ballmer throwing a chair and breaking the series of tubes we call the Internet.
The only thing worse then a suddenOutbreakOfCommonSense coupled with the release of Duke Nukem Forver is the return of Charlie the Unicorn during a Chocolate Rain.
In Soviet Russia Snakes on a plane get You but under the new rulership we are as screwed as the Star Wars Kid getting the hookup with a Wii Fit Girl.
If you don't think things can get worse, I am fine with that, OK Go.
See if I care.
But when Dear Leader forces you to do the Hampster Dance in front of the Saugeen Stripper after the JK Wedding Entrance Dance you will beg to be thrown in with those Snakes on a Plane flying to the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny!
I know that CorrelationNoCausation may apply here but I am certain that the new overlords computer will be superior to our current technology, but does it run Linux and can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of their computers!
My Epeen is huge thinking about it to the point of a joygasm!
Perhaps with their technology we could getyourasstomars in the time it takes to watch the Last Lecture!
Imagine the number of Libraries of Congress we could store using their technology!
Mod me Troll how dare you you insensitive clod!
Now to distract you while I steal the Netcraft report confirming Gentoo Linux is dying.
LOOK OVER THERE!
OMG!!! PONIES!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676484</id>
	<title>I can vouch for this...</title>
	<author>darthnoodles</author>
	<datestamp>1269940140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a chick magnet and thus chick have no morals when they're around me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a chick magnet and thus chick have no morals when they 're around me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a chick magnet and thus chick have no morals when they're around me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688048</id>
	<title>Re:As explained on NPR this morning</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1270051680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being negligent is morally wrong too.  If you can't exercise the care necessary to do something correctly, you shouldn't do it at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being negligent is morally wrong too .
If you ca n't exercise the care necessary to do something correctly , you should n't do it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being negligent is morally wrong too.
If you can't exercise the care necessary to do something correctly, you shouldn't do it at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676118</id>
	<title>There's an (Android) App For That</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269982200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an Android App "Moral Compass" For That. Disclaimer - I wrote the thing while under the influence of a magnetic field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an Android App " Moral Compass " For That .
Disclaimer - I wrote the thing while under the influence of a magnetic field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an Android App "Moral Compass" For That.
Disclaimer - I wrote the thing while under the influence of a magnetic field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676000</id>
	<title>More Intentions than "Morality"</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1269981840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the sound of it the magnetic field didn't render people immoral monsters, but impaired judgement, making the subjects judge the actions of others based on the results of those actions, rather than their intended results.  In other words, "murder" and "involuntary manslaughter" would be considered equal offenses, while "attempted murder" would be on par with "taking a walk in the park on Sunday".</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the sound of it the magnetic field did n't render people immoral monsters , but impaired judgement , making the subjects judge the actions of others based on the results of those actions , rather than their intended results .
In other words , " murder " and " involuntary manslaughter " would be considered equal offenses , while " attempted murder " would be on par with " taking a walk in the park on Sunday " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the sound of it the magnetic field didn't render people immoral monsters, but impaired judgement, making the subjects judge the actions of others based on the results of those actions, rather than their intended results.
In other words, "murder" and "involuntary manslaughter" would be considered equal offenses, while "attempted murder" would be on par with "taking a walk in the park on Sunday".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677338</id>
	<title>Re:Perfection</title>
	<author>Anarki2004</author>
	<datestamp>1269942660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/550/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">Density</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Density [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Density [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678196</id>
	<title>Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1269946260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's epic loot from <a href="http://dresdencodak.com/2006/12/03/dungeons-and-discourse/" title="dresdencodak.com"> Dungeons and Discourse.</a> [dresdencodak.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's epic loot from Dungeons and Discourse .
[ dresdencodak.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's epic loot from  Dungeons and Discourse.
[dresdencodak.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675690</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1269980760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In other news, scientists discover that repeatedly standing in close proximity to magnetic imaging equipment while it is in use degrades the scientist's ability to determine the moral implications of their testing. More at 11."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In other news , scientists discover that repeatedly standing in close proximity to magnetic imaging equipment while it is in use degrades the scientist 's ability to determine the moral implications of their testing .
More at 11 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In other news, scientists discover that repeatedly standing in close proximity to magnetic imaging equipment while it is in use degrades the scientist's ability to determine the moral implications of their testing.
More at 11.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679078</id>
	<title>paranoia on /.</title>
	<author>dominious</author>
	<datestamp>1269950040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Noone mentioned this?<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_VzthQLto2A" title="youtube.com">Control factor</a> [youtube.com]<p><div class="quote"><p>and then I looked up...cell phone towers...major power transmission network..they can control the whole city.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Noone mentioned this ?
Control factor [ youtube.com ] and then I looked up...cell phone towers...major power transmission network..they can control the whole city .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noone mentioned this?
Control factor [youtube.com]and then I looked up...cell phone towers...major power transmission network..they can control the whole city.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676182</id>
	<title>LHC</title>
	<author>unusualHoon</author>
	<datestamp>1269982380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, am worried about the guys at the LHC. They're surrounded by electromagnets strong enough to bend beams of electrons moving near the speed of light into a circle! That's bound to turn anyone into a flaming ass!

<p>Soon enough they'll quit the experiments and start threating the Higgs to show it self.

</p><p>"Get out here HIGGS! I KNOW you're in there. SHOW YOUR UGLY FACE!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , am worried about the guys at the LHC .
They 're surrounded by electromagnets strong enough to bend beams of electrons moving near the speed of light into a circle !
That 's bound to turn anyone into a flaming ass !
Soon enough they 'll quit the experiments and start threating the Higgs to show it self .
" Get out here HIGGS !
I KNOW you 're in there .
SHOW YOUR UGLY FACE !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, am worried about the guys at the LHC.
They're surrounded by electromagnets strong enough to bend beams of electrons moving near the speed of light into a circle!
That's bound to turn anyone into a flaming ass!
Soon enough they'll quit the experiments and start threating the Higgs to show it self.
"Get out here HIGGS!
I KNOW you're in there.
SHOW YOUR UGLY FACE!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675488</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>Dynedain</author>
	<datestamp>1269979920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess is shortly after it shows up on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House\_(TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">House M.D.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is shortly after it shows up on House M.D .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is shortly after it shows up on House M.D.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675978</id>
	<title>Another reason</title>
	<author>CODiNE</author>
	<datestamp>1269981720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps those who had a helmet on giving them a very strong magnetic zap in the brain started thinking...</p><p>"Hey, this could be dangerous.  But I feel okay, I guess it's fine"</p><p>Which influenced their reasoning through the morality of possible danger scenarios.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps those who had a helmet on giving them a very strong magnetic zap in the brain started thinking... " Hey , this could be dangerous .
But I feel okay , I guess it 's fine " Which influenced their reasoning through the morality of possible danger scenarios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps those who had a helmet on giving them a very strong magnetic zap in the brain started thinking..."Hey, this could be dangerous.
But I feel okay, I guess it's fine"Which influenced their reasoning through the morality of possible danger scenarios.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683860</id>
	<title>Man's Polar extremities.</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1270065780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are now marketing a morally magnetic set of underclothing. <br>

It has been tested:  <br>
 see! - <a href="http://www.nikken.com/" title="nikken.com" rel="nofollow"> <b>Volunteers were exposed to transgroinial magnetic stimulation! </b> </a> [nikken.com] <br>
  and the polarity reversing was shockingly demonstrated.  <br> i.e. - Our underwear WORKS!
 <br> The subsequentially teabagged  transgroined are now fully compliant with America's moral majority. <br>
<br>
When your feet hurt, your whole body knows it. But you can be relaxed and comfortable even if you are on your toes all day, thanks to Nikken  insoles!
<br>As well, Nikken introduces RAM Technology. RAM (radial-axis magnetism)
Technology features small magnetic spheres in groups of six!
<br> ON SALE NOW!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are now marketing a morally magnetic set of underclothing .
It has been tested : see !
- Volunteers were exposed to transgroinial magnetic stimulation !
[ nikken.com ] and the polarity reversing was shockingly demonstrated .
i.e. - Our underwear WORKS !
The subsequentially teabagged transgroined are now fully compliant with America 's moral majority .
When your feet hurt , your whole body knows it .
But you can be relaxed and comfortable even if you are on your toes all day , thanks to Nikken insoles !
As well , Nikken introduces RAM Technology .
RAM ( radial-axis magnetism ) Technology features small magnetic spheres in groups of six !
ON SALE NOW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are now marketing a morally magnetic set of underclothing.
It has been tested:  
 see!
-  Volunteers were exposed to transgroinial magnetic stimulation!
[nikken.com] 
  and the polarity reversing was shockingly demonstrated.
i.e. - Our underwear WORKS!
The subsequentially teabagged  transgroined are now fully compliant with America's moral majority.
When your feet hurt, your whole body knows it.
But you can be relaxed and comfortable even if you are on your toes all day, thanks to Nikken  insoles!
As well, Nikken introduces RAM Technology.
RAM (radial-axis magnetism)
Technology features small magnetic spheres in groups of six!
ON SALE NOW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508</id>
	<title>Morality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269979980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does this mean for someone like me, who lives life by my own idea of morality, which is "Do whatever you want as long as you bring no harm to another"?</p><p>Maybe they're interpreting "harm" differently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does this mean for someone like me , who lives life by my own idea of morality , which is " Do whatever you want as long as you bring no harm to another " ? Maybe they 're interpreting " harm " differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does this mean for someone like me, who lives life by my own idea of morality, which is "Do whatever you want as long as you bring no harm to another"?Maybe they're interpreting "harm" differently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675988</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to RTFA; explain?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1269981780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm &mdash; not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.</p></div><p>What distinction are they making between the two? There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.</p></div><p>My room mate is like that. He proposed the following interesting question.</p><p>You are driving a train. By the hypothetical powers that control this scenario, the main track ahead goes over a bridge and the bridge so happens to be out. There are 3 passengers on your train. If you let the train go off the rail by your inaction, they will die. Your other option, is to switch the track up ahead. However, some fiendish fiend has tied a woman up on the tracks, like those cliche western movies.</p><p>Now, it is impossible to stop the train in time. Do you</p><p>A) Let 3 passengers and yourself die by the tragic hands of Fate, keeping a clear conscience?<br>B) Murder the lady knowingly, knowing that you have spared the lives of 3 others?</p><p>Now that you have decided your answer, defend your point from scrutiny.<br>After that - consider these altered scenarios:</p><p>The lady is replaced with a friend of yours. The passengers are strangers. And Vice Versa.<br>Suppose you chose B, but were to die along with the lady but the passengers would live.<br>Suppose the person or the group of people you decide to save were Convicted Murderers, would that alter your decision?</p><p>I have learned more about my friends from this social experiment than any other night of crazed drinking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm    not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.What distinction are they making between the two ?
There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.My room mate is like that .
He proposed the following interesting question.You are driving a train .
By the hypothetical powers that control this scenario , the main track ahead goes over a bridge and the bridge so happens to be out .
There are 3 passengers on your train .
If you let the train go off the rail by your inaction , they will die .
Your other option , is to switch the track up ahead .
However , some fiendish fiend has tied a woman up on the tracks , like those cliche western movies.Now , it is impossible to stop the train in time .
Do youA ) Let 3 passengers and yourself die by the tragic hands of Fate , keeping a clear conscience ? B ) Murder the lady knowingly , knowing that you have spared the lives of 3 others ? Now that you have decided your answer , defend your point from scrutiny.After that - consider these altered scenarios : The lady is replaced with a friend of yours .
The passengers are strangers .
And Vice Versa.Suppose you chose B , but were to die along with the lady but the passengers would live.Suppose the person or the group of people you decide to save were Convicted Murderers , would that alter your decision ? I have learned more about my friends from this social experiment than any other night of crazed drinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.What distinction are they making between the two?
There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.My room mate is like that.
He proposed the following interesting question.You are driving a train.
By the hypothetical powers that control this scenario, the main track ahead goes over a bridge and the bridge so happens to be out.
There are 3 passengers on your train.
If you let the train go off the rail by your inaction, they will die.
Your other option, is to switch the track up ahead.
However, some fiendish fiend has tied a woman up on the tracks, like those cliche western movies.Now, it is impossible to stop the train in time.
Do youA) Let 3 passengers and yourself die by the tragic hands of Fate, keeping a clear conscience?B) Murder the lady knowingly, knowing that you have spared the lives of 3 others?Now that you have decided your answer, defend your point from scrutiny.After that - consider these altered scenarios:The lady is replaced with a friend of yours.
The passengers are strangers.
And Vice Versa.Suppose you chose B, but were to die along with the lady but the passengers would live.Suppose the person or the group of people you decide to save were Convicted Murderers, would that alter your decision?I have learned more about my friends from this social experiment than any other night of crazed drinking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31682412</id>
	<title>Re:Potential abuse of research?</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1269966780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cheat in a game of Solitaire? Its "wrong" to cheat, but nothing bad could possibly happen as a result?</p></div><p>If you're 'cheating' in solitaire, you know you're cheating. It sounds to me like a contradiction in terms, or a redundancy. Can I 'steal' from my wallet if I take out some bills?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheat in a game of Solitaire ?
Its " wrong " to cheat , but nothing bad could possibly happen as a result ? If you 're 'cheating ' in solitaire , you know you 're cheating .
It sounds to me like a contradiction in terms , or a redundancy .
Can I 'steal ' from my wallet if I take out some bills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheat in a game of Solitaire?
Its "wrong" to cheat, but nothing bad could possibly happen as a result?If you're 'cheating' in solitaire, you know you're cheating.
It sounds to me like a contradiction in terms, or a redundancy.
Can I 'steal' from my wallet if I take out some bills?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675380</id>
	<title>What does this mean for MRI scans?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269979620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, does this mean down the road someone can go into an MRI as an altruistic philanthropist and come out a Robert Pickton and blame the MRI scan?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , does this mean down the road someone can go into an MRI as an altruistic philanthropist and come out a Robert Pickton and blame the MRI scan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, does this mean down the road someone can go into an MRI as an altruistic philanthropist and come out a Robert Pickton and blame the MRI scan?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677846</id>
	<title>Putting a tin foil hat..</title>
	<author>propus</author>
	<datestamp>1269944640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>takes a whole new meaning..</htmltext>
<tokenext>takes a whole new meaning. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>takes a whole new meaning..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677078</id>
	<title>My alter ego...</title>
	<author>TheSpatulaOfLove</author>
	<datestamp>1269941880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I'm in the Northern Hemisphere, I'm a pretty nice guy.


The problem begins when I cross the equator - The further south I go, the bigger a douchebag I become!</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 'm in the Northern Hemisphere , I 'm a pretty nice guy .
The problem begins when I cross the equator - The further south I go , the bigger a douchebag I become !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I'm in the Northern Hemisphere, I'm a pretty nice guy.
The problem begins when I cross the equator - The further south I go, the bigger a douchebag I become!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677924</id>
	<title>Re:Morality?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269944940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My only question is, Who gets to decide whether your intended actions are going to bring harm to another?  You or them?</p><p>Let me know when you get that one figured out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My only question is , Who gets to decide whether your intended actions are going to bring harm to another ?
You or them ? Let me know when you get that one figured out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My only question is, Who gets to decide whether your intended actions are going to bring harm to another?
You or them?Let me know when you get that one figured out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675734</id>
	<title>Full Moon</title>
	<author>wzinc</author>
	<datestamp>1269980880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now we need to find-out why more crime, etc happens during a full moon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we need to find-out why more crime , etc happens during a full moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we need to find-out why more crime, etc happens during a full moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676546</id>
	<title>One of the scenarios from TFA</title>
	<author>alex\_guy\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1269940380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"For example, subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe, even if she ends up making it across safely. In such cases, a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless, even though it appears he intended to do harm."
<p>
Posted here incase you are curious and did not want to bother with TFA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For example , subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe , even if she ends up making it across safely .
In such cases , a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless , even though it appears he intended to do harm .
" Posted here incase you are curious and did not want to bother with TFA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For example, subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe, even if she ends up making it across safely.
In such cases, a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless, even though it appears he intended to do harm.
"

Posted here incase you are curious and did not want to bother with TFA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31682886</id>
	<title>Misleading</title>
	<author>Metasquares</author>
	<datestamp>1269970620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is misleading, suggesting that any old magnetic field can alter someone's morality.</p><p>In reality, transcranial magnetic stimulation <em>temporarily disrupts part of the brain</em>. It can blind you, cause you to lose feeling in parts of your body, or cause temporary aphasia (not the sort of thing you'd generally like to be subject to given that we don't understand exactly how functions are localized within the brain). All that this demonstrates is that it can alter one's ability to reason out a person's morality as well. This is not necessarily even a specific response - for all we know it could be disrupting the subjects' ability to empathize with the characters or understand the story altogether.</p><p>It is however somewhat interesting that the behavior elicited when the TMS was applied became more utilitarian than deontological - one philosophy is not necessarily better than the other. I'd question whether their morality was impaired at all. Perhaps it was the morality they had been <em>conditioned</em> to accept that was disrupted. The "memory" of their moral training, so to speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is misleading , suggesting that any old magnetic field can alter someone 's morality.In reality , transcranial magnetic stimulation temporarily disrupts part of the brain .
It can blind you , cause you to lose feeling in parts of your body , or cause temporary aphasia ( not the sort of thing you 'd generally like to be subject to given that we do n't understand exactly how functions are localized within the brain ) .
All that this demonstrates is that it can alter one 's ability to reason out a person 's morality as well .
This is not necessarily even a specific response - for all we know it could be disrupting the subjects ' ability to empathize with the characters or understand the story altogether.It is however somewhat interesting that the behavior elicited when the TMS was applied became more utilitarian than deontological - one philosophy is not necessarily better than the other .
I 'd question whether their morality was impaired at all .
Perhaps it was the morality they had been conditioned to accept that was disrupted .
The " memory " of their moral training , so to speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is misleading, suggesting that any old magnetic field can alter someone's morality.In reality, transcranial magnetic stimulation temporarily disrupts part of the brain.
It can blind you, cause you to lose feeling in parts of your body, or cause temporary aphasia (not the sort of thing you'd generally like to be subject to given that we don't understand exactly how functions are localized within the brain).
All that this demonstrates is that it can alter one's ability to reason out a person's morality as well.
This is not necessarily even a specific response - for all we know it could be disrupting the subjects' ability to empathize with the characters or understand the story altogether.It is however somewhat interesting that the behavior elicited when the TMS was applied became more utilitarian than deontological - one philosophy is not necessarily better than the other.
I'd question whether their morality was impaired at all.
Perhaps it was the morality they had been conditioned to accept that was disrupted.
The "memory" of their moral training, so to speak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677688</id>
	<title>Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1269944100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole. the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinion</p><p>so clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservative</p><p>so i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality! and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!</p></div><p>Or you could just encourage Southerners to read more &lt;/ducks&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>canada is near the north pole , while the usa is closer to the south pole .
the more south you go in the usa in fact , the more conservative the opinionso clearly north pole = liberal , south pole = conservativeso i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole , hide it in an office tower in dallas texas , and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality !
and screw up navigation compasses everywhere ! Or you could just encourage Southerners to read more</tokentext>
<sentencetext>canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole.
the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinionso clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservativeso i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality!
and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!Or you could just encourage Southerners to read more 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31687740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31693896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31696954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31687806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31680140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31686122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31682412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31680808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31687114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31693866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31698904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31680402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_1741224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31686122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31698904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31693866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31687806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31680808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676342
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676906
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31680140
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31682412
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31688154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677050
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31687114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31696954
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31687740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31680402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31693896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31679682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31683686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31676514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31681878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31677122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31675644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_1741224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_1741224.31678180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
