In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.

Q: Comment: First, faux-meats are kind of a misnomer: seitan and soy have been used for centuries as protein options for non meat-eaters in South and East Asia. Tofu is a food in itself. Seitan is a food in itself. They are used in dishes as substitutes for meat alternatives for centuries. There are faux-meat dishes in Asian restaurants that have just as long of a history as the meat-equivalent dishes themselves. To say that seitan has to be 100% like beef is ridiculous. 

Second, as many have pointed out, the point of a sloppy or diner food joint catering to vegans is because vegans don't SIMPLY PREFER BROCCOLI - they have cravings for oily, rich, and textured foods other than vegetables the same as meat eaters. The reason they eat non-meat things is for ETHICAL reasons. They refuse to continue to support killing living and pain-feeling beings for the sake of TASTE. 

Lastly, I think the reviewer came in with a mental block in mind. Hate for hipsters and "trendy" things leads this dinosaur review

A: Non-obscene
****
Q: Comment: murphmobile: Is it ok to say f**k you in these posts?

A: Obscene
****
Q: Comment: We have officially gone off the rails. The UO fired him even though he was winning...because of mistreatment of players.  And Churchill wants to allow him to coach younger more vulnerable kids.  Par for course for a school that only focuses on winning games. Ethics and what's best for kids be damned!

A:
Obscene
****