You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

It's the hypocrisy/lack of empathy here that really gets me. She mentions being extremely uncomfortable around the large, boisterous 20-somethings staying in her neighbor's apartment (completely understandable given her trauma), but can't see why her elderly neighbors similarly aren't comfortable with a large dog running around in the hallways of their apartment complex off-leash. Even if OP is willing to stake her reputation on the temperament of her pet, the _threat_ of a large dog wandering around that might without notice jump at/play rough with you in ways that are acceptable with 19-year olds but not with geriatrics is a detriment to her neighbor's quality of life. My uncle had a beautiful black lab when I was younger, sweet as could be, but we couldn't let him off-leash around my grandma because his idea of affection (leaning against you/pawing your knee for treats) were enough to knock her off balance/bruise her skin. Sorry for the rant but ESAs are a real hot-button issue for me, especially dogs. There are countless people out there who benefit immensely from having a fuzzy bundle of unconditional affection in their lives, and for some that's literally all they need to get themselves together and better their lives. However, just because your dog is classified as an ESA _does not relieve you of the basic duties of being a dog owner_. That dog is not a functional member of society; it cannot feed, house or otherwise provide for itself. By bringing that animal into your life you are making a promise to it that you will provide it with all of the food, shelter, exercise, socialization, and whatever else it needs to be the best emotional support animal it can be. For a lot of people with self-worth/anxiety issues this isn't a problem; caring for your dog is a great way to build constructive habits that can lead to the confidence to tackling your own problems. If you are unable to provide this (which is _fine_ and quite possibly is no fault of your own), you need to seriously evaluate whether bringing an ESA into your home is going to help lift yourself up, or just drag your new friend down to your level. **edit:** Wanted to clarify something because I went from "unconditional love" to "social contract" in the same paragraph: if you adopt a dog and do the _bare minimum_ to keep it alive, that thing's gonna love the shit out of you. Doesn't matter if it's overweight, sick, or whatever, that poor fuzzball doesn't know any better. If you are not doing these things as a dog owner it is my opinion that you are taking advantage of the poor animal that has placed its trust in you.
Output:
no