In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: toxic and non-toxic. Toxicity is defiend as anything that is rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable that would make someone want to leave a converation.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: No one tries to control your morality.  You are free to leave the Church at any time and join a Protestant Church that teaches the liberal, secular, atheistic humanistic Gospel you are looking for.  You are also free to live by the morals of liberal, secular, atheistic humanism if you so choose.  

Is anyone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to be Catholic? If, per chance, you aren't Catholic, why do you care what we believe?

Output: Non-toxic


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Really?

No question, the Chinese masterfully figure out how to copy and build cheaper. Rarely, if ever, better.

As for vested interests in fossil fuels, that is a complete red herring. In the US, fossil fuels are not revered, nor are they feared. Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk do not demand the neutering of Big Oil - he is convinced that he will beat them at their own game. In zero sum Canada, in order for one industry to prosper, another must be choked off by government.

The US understands that when a fuel source is found that beats oil and gas in terms of price, portability and energy density, then it is hasta la vista Big Oil. Until then however, all's fair.

Unlike in Canada where we persist in the fiction of thinking we are eco-laggards in  a world which is rapidly weaning itself off of oil, despite the fact of increasing, not decreasing global demand.

Our nanny state will see us getting poorer, with a few pats on the head from the eco-screamers to keep us warm.

Output: Non-toxic


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Yah til some idiot judge says something different than they will release his ass to society again. Next time he just might kill someone.


Output: Toxic