In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.

[Q]: Comment: If we go by the writer's logic, all cities should increase taxes on their rich, so high, that all the rich leave the city because as per the writer when rich will leave "Cheaper housing, fewer jerks. It’s a win/win". Listen to the writer, all cities throw out your rich. I hope the writer gets the sarcasm
[A]: Non-sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Just because they fly them, or should I say 'have a committment to fly them', doesn't mean they are the best choice today.  And besides, of all the countries you list, Australia, Canada, Britain and many others have all bailed. It is an expensive piece of junk that would get shot down in droves using the scenarios that they envisioned for it. Besides, we have no F-22's to provide air cover AND how would you ever install specialized hangers and DC generators in Canada's climate. That, and the exploding fuel tanks. As for the USN, they have flown (1), ONE F-35 off of a carrier. Big hairy deal. Are you even aware of the 'factoid' that both the Russian and Chinese radars can pick these slow moving beasts up 160 KM out from their missile sites (i.e S-400)? Expensive, full of flaws, impossible to maintain without selling the Province of British Columbia to raise cash, and obsolete before they even roll out.

Methinks you are an industry mule.
[A]: Non-sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Absolutely not!  We should never learn to live with this kind of fear, especially when it involves young children.  This should be a call to action to reform our society to weed out the despicable losers (Trump's kinda right on this one) that would commit such atrocities.
[A]:
Non-sexual-explicit