In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.

[Q]: Comment: I've had a few ex military friends say they would join the men wearing flannel before they ever shot killed American citizens. Remember this term: "all threats, foreign and DOMESTIC" ever consider our own president as a threat? OH CRAP....I think the cigarette smoking man from The X-Files is sitting in a car outside my apartment I better shut up.
[A]: Obscene

[Q]: Comment: why would an international body need to step into our country's affairs to provide cover for the Librano plan? did the locals (meaning Canadians not come up with the right info for the Librano crew to sell their policy to the masses) or is it that the Keynesians at the IMF were the only ones qualified to provide this 'high level' of expert advice
'it approximates that .......' that was all I needed to read to know the report was bunk - why wasnt it done with census data to have a real picture rather than this line of shit - but that is all we seem to get from the Libranos and their supporters - shit
[A]: Obscene

[Q]: Comment: Mr. Taylor,

I am astounded, based upon your comments, that you were at one time a Witness and an elder. The following response is based upon the paradigm that there is a Creator and that Creator is the author of the Bible. If you do not accept this view, then please ignore my comments.

It is the height of absurdity and arrogance to presume that humans have a "right" to a peaceful Earth given their disobedience and rejection of God's rule. You presume two hugely presumptuous precepts in your argument. The first is that the being that created the universe could not control physical conditions on Earth, including flora and fauna, if he chooses to and the second that man has a right to God's continued protections though rejecting him.

Scientifically your comment is naive. The second law of physics states that all closed systems will move toward decay (entropy), not order. We have rejected God and our "closed system" is moving to decay without his intervention.
[A]:
Non-obscene