sunandmoon

I'll take your word for it. To explain a connection between logic and creativity, where nature and randomness are concerned, in the context of determining babies genders, I'd first have to explain the connection between logic and creativity; which I've expressed cannot be, singly, logic. I can't answer your question, you may or may not find help elsewhere... Is this a shout, or a cry?

An answer is evident in the original post... Do you agree that the gender of a baby is not determined randomly? If so, that's the answer!

A ruin of a Colosseum, among other ruins, in a garden, green and full of trees, surrounded by an ocean and islands. Or simply, the theme of the game 'the Talos Principle' (recommended). I can't logically explain the connection between logic and creativity, and the reason why should speak for itself...

Is it wise to think of logic, singly, as intelligent, rather than logic and creativity? - A (current) scientific explanation for 'how a baby's gender is determined'. I asked a question, and produced an argument: are babies genders determined, randomly, or naturally? Do you consider the natural circumstances of childbirth to be, metaphorically, like a bubble (i.e. contained in theoretical space)? I argue that natural circumstances are, in this context, universal, and therefore can't be reduced to a single moment (How big is the bubble?) When a male reproduces with a female, a baby (or babies) is born of either male or female gender. Though this process is random, the result is determined by the male and female duet. To conclude, I argue that there is balance between logic and creativity, that it's unwise to think of logic, singly, as intelligent.

His argument: A (pure-)homosexual cannot force an erection for a female! My argument: "I beg to differ". 1. A (pure-)homosexual cannot force an erection for a female! 2. cannot force an erection for a female! 3. A human cannot be attracted to that which it doesn't feel attraction for. In theory, an erection is, a step ahead. You can't, force, an erection to come naturally, for what you're not attracted to, but carefully, you may, metaphorically, tune it. Con, thinks, but cannot confirm, that a purely homosexual male cannot become heterosexual. I disagree... A purely homosexual man, wants, male on male sexual intercourse, or a, type of, life, with a male; want, is determined by what's available! Scenario: What's available is a bunch of males and a bunch of females; and you don't want the females; you want the males. Want, is a choice, between one or the other - the females are definitely an option. You're not attracted to females, in the same way as you're not attracted to eating a certain food; either because of nature, or nurture. I argue, homosexuality is nurture, and refer Con to the original post to contest what I've said instead of inanely voicing an opinion that's relevance to victory of this argument is nil (I almost fell asleep).

You seem to be in severe pain, old friend. Is it mental pain, or physical pain?

I can't seriously respond, as each word you say is disrespectful to the original post (you haven't considered the original post); you were the first to post disrespectfully (it was never my intention). What happens when someone disrespects you, and you reply seriously to them, and how do you respond to them? I scan your writing, avoiding the sharpness or your ego, and pick out these quotes: No. Ok... I'm glad you mentioned... Same logic, but with women. Yes, you may. Go on then, go prove it's genetic, or read the original post properly.

A purely homosexual man, wants male on male sexual intercourse, or a, type of, life, with a male; want, is determined by what's available! "I think you you should like raspberry ripple ice-cream the best, otherwise, you are a total moron and have no taste." I didn't say, or hint at, anything about this statement, you posted, but, it serves as an example! You want, 'raspberry ripple ice cream', because it's available, amidst the stuff you don't want. You may want the stuff you don't want, if 'raspberry ripple ice cream', isn't available! Now, as tired as we may be, let's broaden our horizons to the content of the original post... You want X lifestyle, and X partner, because it's available, amidst the stuff you don't want. You may want the stuff you don't want, if X lifestyle, and X partner, aren't available, or, and it's a big or, if what you don't want, is improved upon. (sorry).

Literally.

Can a homosexual, become heterosexual? I think it's possible. I assert homosexuality is not genetic, but mental; that homosexuality, is an abstraction of 'human competitive nature'. Boys will be boys... "There is a woman, long lost, in every homosexual man's imagination". 'Human competitive nature' spans from small-scale to large-scale; for example, simple games, and then, war... The abstraction of, this nature, can be abstruse. The long lost woman of the homosexual man's imagination, is hard to keep track of. A homosexual man may find comfort in pure-homosexuality (where there is no alternative); he may endure a life, and sexual life, without woman. Further on 'human competitive nature' and how it links to homosexuality... Life is largely about love, and humans will compete for love... Sometimes a lifestyle, is preferred, over choice of partner. If your desired lifestyle is deemed out of reach, you will opt for an alternative. Sometimes, we prefer choice of partner. Competition surrounding lifestyle, and choice of partner, is often harsh; and good competition is scarce, these days... Restrictions on lifestyle, or choice of partner (law, social systems, etc) have a great effect on a man's mind. To conclude, it's okay to be gay but, why, if you can have a woman?

Not really, all of my family will be treated individually. I understand, pitted against another human individual, or an individual speaking for a family, that, that individual probably has no respect for my family, and will be disrespectful to some degree when I speak for my family. I can't, with substantial effect, for example, argue that an individual, or group of individuals, act is incorrect, because it endangers my family, If I could speak for my family, the fact that someone has no respect for my family, wouldn't matter; which is my point about free-speech.

Am I allowed to respond to this? What I want to discuss: Free speech is not really free, because if I want to speak for my family, I must speak from an individual perspective; therefore I would be speaking for myself.

His tweets were good...

Hassle in this wording makes it time-consuming to explain to you, what's meant, and how to discuss a simple three line topic! (The mental screaming does not help discussion or debate.) Simply, solipsism is thought of in the way you explained it, because of all the things you can do alongside solipsism; hence, 'that is sure to exist', in your description, but you'll probably misunderstand this as well. Solipsism is "ego alone", or just "ego", without liberty.