User talk:CoyoteSans

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, CoyoteSans! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Greetings, CoyoteSans, and thank you for joining the cozy Etch-a-Sketch wiki! I hope you enjoy your time here. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No marriage

"Well, I stand by my stance that marriage should be abolished entirely, and the legal perks that go with it should be restructured to better reflect the fickle nature of human relationships and commitment; ie, tax benefits and division of assets after a split up (divorce, as it is now). I think that would be a much better approach as it would benefit a much larger number of people. However, I know few would actually go along with that plan, so gay marriage is the next-best alternative." Your stance intrigues me, and I've been thinking about a very similar position for a while now. Could you please elaborate? Nihilist 03:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A friend of mine on another forum once clarified it better than I ever could, so I'll repost what they said:

He's talking about the idea that, instead of the government having to recognize various forms of marriage, it would cease to recognize ANY form of marriage. Marriages would still happen, of course, but they'd cease to have any legal benefits. Death rights, tax breaks for households, how parents are decided, and whatnot would have to be redone entirely to accommodate the new structure, but it would ultimately cut the Gordian Knot surrounding the whole thing. It wouldn't matter if some church refuses to marry gay couples; since they're no legal benefits or stipulations, they can do what they want. And the guy down the street who was ordained by the ULC and is perfectly willing to marry any combination of two or more men, women, goats, and aliens can also do as he wants, because his marriage ceremonies have the exact same legal force behind them (IE, none at all).

The actual legal benefits to marriage (Being combined into a single legal household unit, next-of-kin related benefits, ability to adopt children, and so on) would have to be gained through some other avenue, one that doesn't involve arguing about who sticks what into whom or how many. Something like household contracts.

I'll admit, I biased because I adopted this position after watching my mother go through a succession of failed relationships. The only reason she's still legally married to my father is out of financial necessity. Looking from the outside in, it seems to me marriage is becoming an increasingly obsolete social construct that just doesn't jive with modern values of freedom in relationships.

However, if you looking for something along the lines of "This is my twelve-point plan for demolishing marriage and instituting romantic anarchy complete with law drafts and legal briefs for evidence," I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone else. I'm just a guy with an unorthodox opinion on the matter. --CoyoteSans (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me. The big reason I think that so many marriages end in divorce nowadays is not because we're all so evil and immoral, but just because the concept of marriage was never that great of an idea to begin with, and female empowerment as well as decreasing social mores are why people are ending them. Sure, if you can make a single relationship for the rest of your life to work, that's great, but expecting that everyone will be able to do that is stupid. Nihilist 14:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of sense of smell

I saw an amazing BBC doc on "you", a few years back. It never occurred to my how critical the sense of smell is, to every day life - but also to every day safety. Often, we know by smell things like "shit, teh food is burning", or "oh god, the cat peed again". I respect you that much more for having seen why it's not just about not smelling the pretty flowers. :-) as for the sex drive thing - man, that does suck from my perspective. GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 18:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The best part of flowers isn't the smell, anyways. It's the texture of the petals (this is why pansies are the best flowers—that delicate velvety feel is divine). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting. When people say things like "the sweet smell of a rose," the closest analogue I can imagine is "the sweet taste of a strawberry." It makes me think about how alien the concept of, say, color to a person born blind is.

Still, I recognize I'm very lucky and privileged. My sense of taste has adapted to compensate for the lack of smell (and I eat with my eyes more than the average person as well). Even combined with my suspected Marfan's Syndrome (which I suspect is the cause of my anosmia), I'm still consider myself very Able. --CoyoteSans (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When I'm working with ASL speakers, i still find myself saying "that sounds fun" (rolls eyes at self), or being asked by someone "what is an tonic accent? what do you mean the meter of the poem or the foot of the poem?" ah, things you take for granted. GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 18:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sysop

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 08:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)