great

That wasn't "asking" as much as it was me pointing out you were proving my point

"responded out of politeness." Ok bud

You don't care about the discussion I had with you? Like the words you wrote that I responded to?

Sure? I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to address everyone who is looking at that comment.

Also, any response to the actual discussion point?

I have honestly no idea what the "plebbit cringe" is that you keep going on about.

And since when is Goldman Sachs a healthcare company?

Anddddd I'm still waiting

You know, you got me there. However, the average female isn't going to take that much and I don't think any are taking 24 inches of throbbing,veiny, glorious horse c*ck...

Realistically, having a horse c*ck-sized c*ck would not be great. Females can't take more than 8" max. You'd really just be out there showing off to dudes .... wait

Yeah ... Plebs gonna pleb.

And I think we are going in circles - we agree that those people exist and ruin things for everyone else.

I'm just saying that can be mitigated with the proper incentives - I think this is pretty much the sole purpose of having a government: protect citizens from other people (citizens or otherwise).

I think the penalties for extrinsic harms should be much harsher - I think the term "crimes against humanity" should be used to describe any instance where the environment is harmed due to human negligence or greed.

So I have no problem with Goldman Sachs not wanting to invest in something like that. I don't believe that not doing a positive is the same as doing a negative.