In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: identity-attack and non-identity-attack. Identity attack refers to anything rude or disrespectful about someone's identity, including appearance, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Let me give you an example: Comment: It's bad enough we already have all these American sicko's living in this country shooting up theatre, schools, churches, malls, etc., we don't have room for crazy muslims.
The answer to this example can be: Identity-attack
Here is why: This comment contains identity attacks on both American and Muslim.

OK. solve this:
Comment: Well, crappy language aside, would you agree:
- you argue that differences between males and females is a explanation as to why women can never be ordained priests?
- that style of argument is what is meant by the ontological argument?
- that argument is no longer part of the magisterium's explanation, in so far as it was conspicuously dropped from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?
- to invoke an obsolete argument in a current discussion is fairly described as metaphorically hauling something out of a closet?
- "deniers" is a fair epithet for those who deny that woman can be ordained?

The leaves only my adjective "crap" to describe the ontological argument. Yeah, I could have been more circumspect in expressing my "disdainful dismissal" of this argument. Note, BTW, that it is the argument that I "dismiss" as "crap" not those who haul it out of the closet.

Still, Pandora, if you have taken offence and feel you have been unfairly "labelled" and "dismissed", I apologize.
Answer:
Non-identity-attack