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: I repeat: the notion that Blessed Mother ought have a conniption over a mechanical spider--a work of art, not a symbol of the occult--and stomp all over it is the height of absurdity. 

"Nothing demeaning was intended in the spider being near the church." 

Said the Archbishop.

No need for the smelling salts.
Non-toxic

Comment: 𝘓𝘖𝘓𝘭𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 -- 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 "𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢" 𝘦𝘹𝘩𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 ("𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘣𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘩𝘶𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘶𝘣𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘢"). 𝘐𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘰𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮, 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 "𝘓𝘖𝘓" 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵.
Non-toxic

Comment: Oh, dissent in the RG's ranks?

I would like to know why a building was named for Dunn in the first place.  Despite the negative editorial today, at some point in the past, important people respected Dunn enough to name a building after him.  Why?  Come on RG in dissing a man like this it is important to tell the whole story.  People at the time thought he did something good.  What was that good?  I should be pissed as a member of the Catholic tradition about Dunn, but I am not because it is part of dead history.  I am more concerned about what he did that was good than his failings as measured by today's PC culture.

Non-toxic