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.

Comment: Private sector jobs are not an issue for Liberals, they're set for life anyway.  It's all about government, public sector, regulations, borrowing money, students, immigrants from a certain few countries, environment, native rights, women's rights, i.e. non-Conservative voters.  How many Canadians can even name the finance minister, usually a PM's high-profile key portfolio?
Non-toxic

Comment: Mr Khan stepped into partisan politics because his son's death was disrespected by Trump's rhetoric. Trump had no choice but to tone it down for once in his campaign.
Non-toxic

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.

Non-toxic