In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: identity-attack and non-identity-attack. Identity attack refers to anything rude or disrespectful about someone's identity, including appearance, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

[Q]: Comment: Your major premise was that one is morally permitted to act on whatever inclination he's born with.  Your minor was that gays are born with a sexual attraction for men, therefore . . .
Bad major.  That was the point.
[A]: Identity-attack


[Q]: Comment: I knew it. I knew that whatever Dingman used as a title to his column, whatever his opening paragraphs were, I knew Dingman would end up in the same place he always ends up. I knew he'd end up promoting the same nonsensical garbage that the laziest of lazy journalists always promote; that being the false equivalency and both siderist trash that people like Dingman, Ron Fournier and David Brooks always promote.  

No matter the specific issue or situation, Dingman is just like a parrot that keeps squawking "brawk brawk, both sides, both sides, brawk brawk.

Dingman says both conventions were equally marred by "disunity". But even the master of the false equivalency, the Ayatollah of both siderism, David Brooks, even he wasn't brushing the conventions with his usual both siderist paint.  

Early in his column, Dingman refers to the "political cluelessness" of others. But if he  wants to see a living, breathing example of political cluelessness, all he needs is a mirror.
[A]: Non-identity-attack


[Q]: Comment: Let's out our heads together and guess what his response may have been had the Texas shooter been Muslim.
[A]:
Identity-attack