Q: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Y'know, I'm calling satire on this one. Not because it's satire, but because REFUSE to believe anything they say is at all serious. Like, I KNOW it's a verified account of a well-known "charity" (huge fucking air quotes around that one), but Jesus Christ!  They kidnap pets from loving homes and fucking kill them!    And then they make these strawman arguments about things no animal rights activist would actually believe. Why, just last year they campaigned for polar bears to go extinct, because breeding them in zoos is unethical. I swear, next time they're going to say treating schistosomiasis in the developing world is actually bad *because parasitic worms deserve to live too!!*    Fuck this charity and everything to do with them. The less that people take PETA seriously, the better.
A:
no