In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

Ex Input:
Comment: Definitely NOT. Besides your ignorantly equating Christianity and Islam as being equivalent or the same when they are not, one, people indulging in their private sexual predilections, that does nothing but give them cheap thrills, is not the same as religion, particularly Christianity which is the foundation of civilization in Europe and the United States. Comparing what people do with their wing ding or other body crevices with Christianity is highly asinine. Two, there is no civil right to engage in any sexual behavior you want to engage in, based on nothing but just because you feel like it. Necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality must be allowed also based on that.

But why the cherry picked hatred of Christianity and Islam? Buddhism and Hinduism are ok, but Christianity and Islam are not? Based on what do you make that distinction? Is that based solely upon whether some let you do whatever you feel like doing and some don't? That would be a myopic, self absorbed basis.

Ex Output:
Non-threat

Ex Input:
Comment: Vancouver was thinking it was a good idea to pass a law mandating snow tires- but only if there was snow on the ground?

How on earth was that law going to be enforced? Who was going to enforce it? How were people going to comply? Check the weather then break out the jack?

Two questions arise in my mind-

1- Did the author completely miss the actual wording of the proposed law? Because surely a law like that could not have actually been proposed, right?

2- If the author's research was accurate, it beggars the question: How do people that stupid actually get elected?

Ex Output:
Non-threat

Ex Input:
Comment: It really would be great if all religions would examine their own doctrines and how they were guilty of violating their own teachings. Native people were and are, human beings but religions just couldn't wrap their minds around it at all. Religions still don't understand the basics of Spirituality as opposed to religious doctrine. The one statement in this article about the US government giving their apologies for all the theft from and killing of indigenous people, will never be heard! It still goes on to this day. The early settlers in this country, had a legal open season on native people and didn't have a bag limit to boot! Some kind of moral decay brought on by religion and European culture?

Ex Output:
Non-threat