TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Comment: Peeing in the park/alley when you think no one is looking is not an offense that requires registration as a sex offender in the State of Colorado. It does not meet the elements of Indecent Exposure, which requires a KNOWING exposure of genitals to the view of another person when done with the intent to arouse. It also does not meet the elements of Public Indecency (which only requires registration after a second conviction within 5 years), which requires a KNOWING exposure of genitals to the view of another person.

Also, the juvenile sex offender registry is not made available to the public in the same way as the adult sex offender registry. And first-time juvenile sex offenders are able to petition for de-registration once they have successfully completed their sentence.

SOLUTION: Sexual-explicit

PROBLEM: Comment: Just because they fly them, or should I say 'have a committment to fly them', doesn't mean they are the best choice today. And besides, of all the countries you list, Australia, Canada, Britain and many others have all bailed. It is an expensive piece of junk that would get shot down in droves using the scenarios that they envisioned for it. Besides, we have no F-22's to provide air cover AND how would you ever install specialized hangers and DC generators in Canada's climate. That, and the exploding fuel tanks. As for the USN, they have flown (1), ONE F-35 off of a carrier. Big hairy deal. Are you even aware of the 'factoid' that both the Russian and Chinese radars can pick these slow moving beasts up 160 KM out from their missile sites (i.e S-400)? Expensive, full of flaws, impossible to maintain without selling the Province of British Columbia to raise cash, and obsolete before they even roll out.

Methinks you are an industry mule.

SOLUTION: Non-sexual-explicit

PROBLEM: Comment: Sir, you are begging the question--that is--your conclusion is present in the premises of your argument. You are assuming what you want to prove, namely, that it is an "injustice" to not ordain women.

If God has not called women to orders, then no ordaining women is just. It would be an injustice to ordain them.

In the second place, I define justice as giving something their due--what they are owed. No one is owed the Sacraments. The Sacraments are gifts. Therefore I do not see how one can claim they are entitled to any of the Sacraments, let alone ordination.

In any case, in order to claim that the Church teaching on women is unjust, you have to prove that God is calling women to ordination in the first place--and THAT, sir, is the question. THAT is what is at issue.

SOLUTION:
Non-sexual-explicit