In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.

Q: Comment: The entire millenial generation learned what blow jobs are thanks to Bill Clinton.

A: Sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: Trid sees nothing wrong with "No Dogs or Jews", "We don't serve Muslims" and so on. He supports bigotry. And no, that is NOT a straw man, but the clear and obvious implication of your " If either the buyer or the seller does not want to enter into that contract for whatever reason then I believe they have the right to refuse." Thank you for proving that your claim to being a Christian is a complete sham.

A: Non-sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: Due process was provided when they were considered disabled and eligible for SSI. It was further provided when they were adjudged to require a cxonservator. If you wish to address "due Process", let's do look at "felons." Do you think it's reasonable to apply the standard to exclude a person convicted of tax evasion from purchasing or owning a firearm as applied to someone convicted of armed robbery or attempted murder? The ineligibility for firearm ownership was determined by "status" and, in the case of felons, that's a very broad status. Felons can "recover' their Second Amendment Rights, but it requires legal action on their part to do so.

Frankly, I would suggest those severely mentally-ill individuals who were excluded by the Obama Order were more of a danger than most felons.

A:
Non-sexual-explicit
****