Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.
--------
Question: In the year 2016, anyone who shoots a large animal for any reason other than for self defense, to ward off imminent starvation, or as a mercy is simply an a*****e.

Answer: Yes


Question: That was fast.  Public unions are getting their payback for electing Weddleton, Dunbar, and the rest of the libs before the airwaves even cool off from all the union purchased campaign advertising.

Next we'll get Weddleton peevs shoved down our throats telling us how or what we are allowed to do on our own property.  He really, REALLY likes manipulating title 21 to force a liberal enviro agenda. As long as it's not in his backyard that is.  That's why his nickname is "NIMBY" to the politicians and policy enforcers who've had to deal with him in the past.  Congrats South Anchorage.

Answer: No


Question: Alexander Durban--You have so much to eat you can REFUSE to eat animal protein out of some misguided, maudlin delusion of "love" for other species.  But you turn a cold-shoulder of indifference to millions of crying, starving human babies whose families would give anything they have or do anything they were asked to get just a little milk to assuage the screaming hunger in their children's bellies because you're all weepy over COWS???

I'll tell you what I told the last "animal liberation" imbecile whose whiny tripe received undue attention on these pages: we are omnivores.  Come tell one of our big brownies to "honor motherhood" by not eating a moose calf or ripping roe out of a mama salmon's belly.  Go 'head.  Natural selection is always on the lookout for the weak and stupid--it'll cure all your ills, and the space, oxygen and resources wasted on simpletons like you can go to a more deserving member of our species.

Answer:
Yes