In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: toxic and non-toxic. Toxicity is defiend as anything that is rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable that would make someone want to leave a converation.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: No one tries to control your morality. You are free to leave the Church at any time and join a Protestant Church that teaches the liberal, secular, atheistic humanistic Gospel you are looking for. You are also free to live by the morals of liberal, secular, atheistic humanism if you so choose.

Is anyone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to be Catholic? If, per chance, you aren't Catholic, why do you care what we believe?

Output: Non-toxic

Input: Consider Input: Comment: " No one's interpretation of the bible should control how other members of a faith community follow their interpretation of the bible. "

And this is the problem and is a false statement by Dr. Taylor. A church community has every right to define itself and explain what that community believes the bible teaches. And to claim you can rebel and believe as you please and still remain a member is simply blatant rebellion.

If you don't agree, then you are free to withdraw from that community and join another, or start your own if you think you can.

And the article is a false dilemma about authority. While the early church claimed final authority over the bible, they also claimed the right to kill anyone who disagreed and/or opposed their views.

So to equate the SDA church government with this false spirituality is not the facts of the matter. Dan Jackson should simply start his own church and quit rebelling against properly ordained authority in the SDA church.

Output: Non-toxic

Input: Consider Input: Comment: You're mixing up the legal presumption of innocence with a factual finding of innocence. The latter doesn't exist.
Output: Non-toxic