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.

[Q]: Comment: ^Fallacy of composition.
[A]: Non-toxic


[Q]: Comment: " No one's interpretation of the bible should control how other members of a faith community follow their interpretation of the bible. " 

And this is the problem and is a false statement by Dr. Taylor. A church community has every right to define itself and explain what that community believes the bible teaches. And to claim you can rebel and believe as you please and still remain a member is simply blatant rebellion.

If you don't agree, then you are free to withdraw from that community and join another, or start your own if you think you can.

And the article is a false dilemma about authority. While the early church claimed final authority over the bible, they also claimed the right to kill anyone who disagreed and/or opposed their views.

So to equate the SDA church government with this false spirituality is not the facts of the matter. Dan Jackson should simply start his own church and quit rebelling against properly ordained authority in the SDA church.
[A]: Non-toxic


[Q]: Comment: What you say is true.  However, it happened under Russia's watch and no other possible story has been put forth.  Look at the clues: Assad has used them in the past.  Who else has aircraft in the area, let alone the sarin gas?   What is the motivation for anyone using the gas?  Is is possible that there are factions in the Syrian military?  When it looks like sh*t and smells like sh*t, then, you know...
[A]:
Toxic