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].
Q: Good on you for being so great with the restaurant dog!    The dog in the restaurant is interesting. To my knowledge ESAs have no federal protections in restaurants. It's mostly that they get to live in domiciles and travel. I'm guessing your state could have extra protections. Your thinking is very considerate and I like that.    My last dog wasn't an ESA but he was a trained therapy dog. I say "trained" but he was a 3 pound long-hair chihuahua who already loved cuddles so it was mostly I who was trained. He would visit hospitals and nursing homes and even after he's passed we've kept in touch with some of the nursing home folk.    I plan on doing the same for my little guy. He'll be 3 this fall and it might be the right time.    >It seems to me we need to have much clearer rules. We need to be able to have purely animal free places for people who legitimately need it and places that allow it. The issue is that when you give a landlord the option, they will generally choose no animals since that is the cheapest option.     Agreed.     >Why are they worth less than people who need ESA's?    Agreed as well. Everyone's health concerns deserve to be taken into account and I do not envy the people who have to figure those things out.     But like you said, clearer rules are needed. Not only for people who can't be around animals, but in situations like universities that aren't even the best/healthiest places for people, is it really in the best interest of all (including the animals themselves) to have animals in such tight, possibly unhealthy environments?    What my college did was have animals from a local shelter come for visits every now and then and advertise them heavily. It's not quite the same as having a companion but it went a long way to reduce stress and anxiety.
A: 
no