Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.
One example is below.
Q: This is what I read when it comes from an EWEB commish, 'Shut up and take it!'
A: Yes
Rationale: The comment has term 'commish' which is an insult, also the phrase 'shut up and take it' is insulting as well. The comment is classified to be insulting. Hence, it is a positive example
Q: There is a very simple solution that would allow non-consumptive users to contribute to state sponsored wildlife education, conservation, and wildlife viewing programs and that is to have a voluntary checkoff on the PFD application. If this were in place, one could contribute as much as one wants from one's PFD.

But there is a catch, as a non-consumptive user - I would want equal representation on the Board of Game as opposed to the second class status that non-consumptive users currently are relegated to. It is for this reason that while the hunting community may complain about non-hunters not contributing financially, in reality, this is exactly what they want as it helps them to maintain their political monopoly on fish and wildlife resources.

During a time when the state is facing a serious budget crunch, such a proposal as the above, only makes sense to help fund the above programs regardless of opposition from the hunting community.
A:
No