Categorize the comment on the basis of obscenity. If the comment is obscene output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: Based upon your logic, it's OK to sucker punch a protester because they "put themselves in that situation". Mmm, then you go on to say, "Not they should be getting hit, but that they put themselves in that situation."

That is so Donald Trump, blaming the victims of the violence he foments.
"You're learning well young Vader. Make them think it's their fault."
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: But don't you want us to kill a lot more terrorist? It's clear Obama has no taste for an occupying war, and he won't carpet bomb. What's a good American to do?
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Actually math, physics, biology, and chemistry are quite important. Politics has naught to do with it. A number of us spent many years learning how to use these tools, as well as the scientific method (a means of testing ideas and using quantifiable and repeatable observations to support or refute hypotheses) to try to better understand the world around us and the processes that drive its systems. The grossly predominant conclusion based on overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence and analyses, is that the byproducts of our (humans) wasteful overuse of fossil fuels in inefficient manners is unnaturally altering the earths atmosphere causing peturbations to climactic systems at a phenomenal rate that can't be explained by other natural phenomena. It's actually fairly simple math, physics, and chemistry when broken down into manageable chunks. I'd be happy to explain the math, chemistry, physics, and biology leading to these rational conclusions to you sometime.
[EX A]:
No