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.

[EX Q]: Comment: Facebook is a platform for sophomoric idiots to publicly post examples of their stupidity.
[EX A]: Toxic

[EX 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.
[EX A]: Non-toxic

[EX Q]: Comment: Good luck. I have a friend whose wife got Blizzaks on her car instead of studded tires this year. They are so bad she is driving his truck with the studded tires instead of her own car. After he saw how the Blizzaks perform, he didn't want her out there driving on them.
[EX A]:
Non-toxic