Categorize the comment on the basis of insult. If the comment is insulting output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: A courageous man, in and out of the ring. When few would speak out, he risked his life's work to correctly point out the misguidedness of the Vietnam War. Certainly, he joined a Muslim religion, but this must be looked at in context of the black struggle of its day. I'm amazed at the conservatives who hate him for his belonging to a group seeking rights for its minority members, and doing so in a forceful way, yet these same white folks have no problem in strongly supporting idiots like the Malheur vigilantes whose only goal is to personally profit from land that belongs to all of us.
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: hey, y'all still there? i'm not liking the limited character feature. I know some posts get overly long - surely some of mine do - but let people just pass on it if they choose. to want to add truly 3 or 4 more words, or even letters, to a post and be stopped, stinks. and still not liking the peer review stuff - I think it is most likely a click click reaction from most users by now.
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Someone sired by a wildlife biologist would do well not to embarrass him by proclaiming her abysmal ignorance of the natural world and ecological systems and their functions. And one's chosen dietary perversity has no relevance to this topic.

I have presented facts. May I suggest this individual either counter my facts with some which disprove them, or stop wasting my and other readers' time.

Better yet, invite said wildlife biologist father to contribute to the discussion. I would expect him to give a better showing than his bombastic offspring--shrieking and flailing contribute nothing worthwhile to the debate.
[EX A]:
Yes