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.

Comment: Maybe you don't have a girlfriend because you're so sour.   I feel sorry for you.
Non-obscene

Comment: Those same fisherman also leave the state with the profits that are not subject to an Alaska income tax.
Non-obscene

Comment: Instead of clergy, especially archbishops such as Hart, martyrially defending the Tradition of the seal of confession, he, and others, rather, should be making 2 things very clear to anyone who may be considering coming to confession: 1) that mutually abusive clerical confessions do NOT result in the absolution of sins because it is an abomination of the sacrament (if abusive priests are paranoid enough about the state of their souls because of their abuse, to confess it, then they might also be paranoid enough to fear damnation because of, therefore, un-absolved sins); 2) that any absolution of child abuse sins in confession will be completely dependent on the abuser recognising that their ‘sin’ is also as a ‘crime’ and, therefore, an activity that needs to also be ‘confessed’ to the police as well, and/or reported by the priest hearing the confession. Doing so would also say, the needs of the abused come before Tradition and the canoncial requirement of  'priestly/brotherly' support.

Non-obscene

