The old system uses BC (Before Christ) and AD (latin for year of our lord) and the new system uses BCE (before common era) and CE (Common Era). There's been a big push to switch over to the BCE/CE system, but it seems like BC/AD has been holding its ground. For example, wikipedia still uses BC.
In my opinion, the traditional system isn't perfect, but the new system makes no sense. Using the birth (estimate) of Jesus isn't going to please everyone, but at least the labels are accurate. In what way are the years after 0 uncommon and the years before 0 uncommon? The most obvious answer is that Christianity has made western civilization "common", but if that's the case than using BCE/CE doesn't move us any father from euro-centrism.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
I tend to agree with you. The thing of it is that their trying to take the Christian markers out...but end of the day, you can change the letters, you can try to change the meaning...but we're still using the accepted dates of Christ's birth as our measuring stick for what constitutes the modern conception of years and counting backwards for all time prior to that.
I understand the motive, it's probably a very pure, well meaning motive...but it's not going to change the actual facts.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 6/25/11 02:34 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
I understand the motive, it's probably a very pure, well meaning motive...but it's not going to change the actual facts.
or another atheist attempt at removing a religious reference from society. Next thing you know, they'll wanna move the 0 year back or forwards by 50 years to remove the fact its still based off the estimated year of Jesus' birth.
if it's not broken, don't fix it.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
Well then, its agreed. We should keep it the same as before.
....(?)
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
Doesn't really matter, some people used to use the fall of the Roman empire as the start of the new calender (Julian IIRC, it was used by the Russians until too many stupid things occured when working with Western powers they then switched) since it represents the end of the Ancient World, but then again the Roman empire only effected a couple regions and it didn't effect the world a whole lot. Sure European empires would then determine the course of history and they conquered every inch of continents, but then what about the rise or fall of the Mongol Empire? That was the 2nd biggest empire in history and biggest land connected one ranging from the Ukraine to Egypt to China, and it certainly did determine the histories of the conquered territories.
I would say the base it off the earliest year preferably rounded of civilization, that would make sense.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
We should just switch to Star Dates.
Really though, while it hasn't changed much in every day life it is mostly a change in academia. Text books have been using Common Era for a while now (at least since high school for me). I believe that the change is probably mostly political correctness but also a shift away from such a strong Western slant in books to make our academia more approachable and understandable to say the other few Billion people who don't use our dating method. Yeah, maybe in the dusty rooms of US History professor conferences only one or two guys might be concerned by BC/AD as a religious date but I'm not thinking the thousands of students traveling to Europe and the North America from Asia give much of a damn about when Jesus was born. Just as you may not know their dating systems or the significance of it, they don't know about ours.
I think we sometimes forget that we aren't the only culture on the planet and that as we integrate in a global economy that includes a global education and transferring of ideas and writings we need to make sure everyone understands what we are saying. I happen to think it makes more sense to say Before Common Era because nobody is really sure when Jesus was born. Our dates are all muddled by the early church shooting blind at picking a date. Hell, we celebrate Christ's birth in the middle of winter when they say he was likely born in the spring. BCE makes more sense to me because of this.
It would make the most sense to start counting from the beginning of time. The Jews had the right idea in that sense (Anno Mundi); unfortunately it is no longer a commonly held view that the world was created about 6,000 years ago and changing the current year from 2011 to 13750000000 is just as arbitrary, if not unworkable. It could be like changing from degrees Celsius (or Fahrenheit) to degrees Kelvin if it would be possible to exactly date the Big Bang.
At 6/25/11 12:53 PM, lapis wrote: It would make the most sense to start counting from the beginning of time. The Jews had the right idea in that sense (Anno Mundi); unfortunately it is no longer a commonly held view that the world was created about 6,000 years ago and changing the current year from 2011 to 13750000000 is just as arbitrary, if not unworkable. It could be like changing from degrees Celsius (or Fahrenheit) to degrees Kelvin if it would be possible to exactly date the Big Bang.
I wouldn't mind changing it to make it more accessible for other parts of the world but using the word common is moronic as our world is currently going through so many changes that it is impossible to call any one year the beginning of a common era. It would probably be simplest to use the currently common assumption that Mesopotamia became the first civilization around 8000 BC and use that as the beginning of the calender, putting us at the year 10011, as anything before that would simply be referred to in how many years it was before now it doesn't really need a labeling system the way current calenders do. At least until a global standard can be set.
alright then, the whole bc/ad thing is too politically incorrect? fine, let's use the Japanese system where a new era begins every time the old emperor dies. try and figure THAT one out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_er a
there you go, a perfectly atheist friendly.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
Korriken... are you trolling or do you actually have your panties in a bunch?
At 6/26/11 02:39 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Korriken... are you trolling or do you actually have your panties in a bunch?
well, it does irritate me when people do pointless things, which change nothing and make a big deal out of it all in the name of being belligerently anti religious, for the sake of being belligerently anti religious.
I'd be equally irritated(if not more) if they wanted to change AD to 'Year of our lord and savior Jesus Christ, 2011"
People insist on doing pointless things to try and destroy parts of our culture that are even more ancient than our culture, all for the sake of being "progressive"
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 6/25/11 11:50 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
Does that mean we'll have to change every date every 4-8 years?
depends on how long the emperor of Japan lives... or i guess we could do it based off our own president.
Tis the year Obama 3. few would believe that Obama could have beaten Clinton back in Bush 6.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 6/26/11 03:01 PM, Korriken wrote: [...]
All understandable. Though I guess my issue is more about time and money than preservationism. I don't really see it as all that culturally destructive. Pointless, yeah.
At 6/25/11 12:53 PM, lapis wrote: It could be like changing from degrees Celsius (or Fahrenheit) to degrees Kelvin if it would be possible to exactly date the Big Bang.
Time starts from minus infinity. Start counting. (urge to post trollface)
RubberJournal: READY DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO DESCRIBE IT!
Mathematics club: we have beer and exponentials.
Cartoon club: Cause Toons>> Charlie Sheen+Raptor
At 6/27/11 08:11 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
All understandable. Though I guess my issue is more about time and money than preservationism. I don't really see it as all that culturally destructive. Pointless, yeah.
I honestly can't see how time or money is involved in the bc/ad bce/ce debate.
I feel the whole idea is a waste of time when they could be doing something meaningful like trying to get the metric system adopted in America... something I don't really support or oppose because I can measure using both just fine.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
we should go by the Myan Calender.
then again thats only good until 2012 (they went and had to make the damn thing round)
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 6/26/11 03:01 PM, Korriken wrote: well, it does irritate me when people do pointless things, which change nothing and make a big deal out of it all in the name of being belligerently anti religious, for the sake of being belligerently anti religious.
I'm going to have to agree with Malachy and say that the change of names wasn't a belligerently anti-religious decision. The terms BCE/CE are generally only used in college level textbooks or scientific papers anyways. I don't see how it matters to you.
I'd be equally irritated(if not more) if they wanted to change AD to 'Year of our lord and savior Jesus Christ, 2011"
Okay.
People insist on doing pointless things to try and destroy parts of our culture that are even more ancient than our culture, all for the sake of being "progressive"
As I said earlier, we have to be able to communicate effectively with others that don't share our culture.
Also, progress is bad...
You do realize that a "progressive" is anyone that advocates reform through government action? The BCE/CE change had little to nothing to do with the United States government. Anyways do you honestly believe that all forms of progressivism are bad?
On the 3rd day of the 7th month of the year of our lord and savior Jesus Christ 2011 at 01:02 AM, bgraybr wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with Malachy and say that the change of names wasn't a belligerently anti-religious decision. The terms BCE/CE are generally only used in college level textbooks or scientific papers anyways. I don't see how it matters to you.
the thing that doesn't float with me is "a shift away from such a strong Western slant in books to make our academia more approachable and understandable to say the other few Billion people who don't use our dating method."
the dating method is still the same, the only thing you changed was the word (or letters) afterward. if it's not a case of "omfgreligionkillit!" then what exactly is it?
As I said earlier, we have to be able to communicate effectively with others that don't share our culture.
I still don't see how changing it helps that in any way, its' still 2 (or 3) letters behind the same exact dating system. you don't even have to know what those letters even MEAN to use it! who even uses AD? anyone? I never hear it used on a daily basis.
Also, progress is bad...
Meaningful progress is good, pointless progress for the sake of doing away with tradition within world culture(s) is bad.
Anyways do you honestly believe that all forms of progressivism are bad?
given what it entails? mostly, yes. so what are we changing next? AM/PM? Those are in that impossible for anyone from the east to understand Latin as well, maybe we should change it AM/BM?
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 7/3/11 01:43 AM, Korriken wrote: the dating method is still the same, the only thing you changed was the word (or letters) afterward. if it's not a case of "omfgreligionkillit!" then what exactly is it?
The religion was removed from it- it was given a secular definition.
You're interpreting it as an attack on a specific religion, instead of an attempt to include other faiths.
I still don't see how changing it helps that in any way, its' still 2 (or 3) letters behind the same exact dating system. you don't even have to know what those letters even MEAN to use it! who even uses AD? anyone? I never hear it used on a daily basis.
If it's such an insignificant change then why does it matter to you?
Meaningful progress is good, pointless progress for the sake of doing away with tradition within world culture(s) is bad.
No, it's an attempt to make it apply to any world culture- not do away with any. "Common Era" is generic.
given what it entails? mostly, yes. so what are we changing next? AM/PM? Those are in that impossible for anyone from the east to understand Latin as well, maybe we should change it AM/BM?
If it was changed, then what of it?
You ignored the fact that this isn't being carried out by the government. This isn't censorship or some kind of anti-religious movement. I understand what you're trying to get across but it simply doesn't apply in this situation. It's a small change that's popped up in new textbooks and official documents. No one's asking you to use those terms.
At 7/3/11 01:55 AM, bgraybr wrote:
The religion was removed from it- it was given a secular definition.
You're interpreting it as an attack on a specific religion, instead of an attempt to include other faiths.
You make my point. It's a pointless case of "omfgreligionkillit!!" even thought the point between bce/ce still has a religious root so they're gonna need to change that eventually.
If it's such an insignificant change then why does it matter to you?
Because its another case of 'let's change something for the sake of changing something!"
No, it's an attempt to make it apply to any world culture- not do away with any. "Common Era" is generic.
its just part of the ongoing 'intellectual' atheistic academic war to remove religion. been going on for longer than we've been around.
given what it entails? mostly, yes. so what are we changing next? AM/PM? Those are in that impossible for anyone from the east to understand Latin as well, maybe we should change it AM/BM?If it was changed, then what of it?
You ignored the fact that this isn't being carried out by the government.
I never said it was being carried out by the government, you just assume I did.
This isn't censorship or some kind of anti-religious movement. I understand what you're trying to get across but it simply doesn't apply in this situation.
It's academia, their mortal enemy is religion and those who 'foolishly cling to their magic man in the sky'
It's a small change that's popped up in new textbooks and official documents. No one's asking you to use those terms.
not yet anyway... give it time.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
I have a cliche phrase to sum up the actions of both sides of this debate:
Much ado about nothing.
At 7/3/11 12:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I have a cliche phrase to sum up the actions of both sides of this debate:
Much ado about nothing.
this might be the one time i actually agree with you.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
Yeah just keep it, who gives a fuck.
Are we going to change the planet's names too? Wow, Jupiter, that's offensive to Christians because it's a reference to polytheism!
Lots of things has stupid names. Get on changing to the metric system instead.
At 7/3/11 01:05 PM, poxpower wrote: Are we going to change the planet's names too? Wow, Jupiter, that's offensive to Christians because it's a reference to polytheism!
Who knows? In the past ten years we lost Pluto, and I am still bitter.
Lots of things has stupid names. Get on changing to the metric system instead.
Too lazy to adopt the metric system, and anyway, Kms are just too short to be a good measurement. I say we do what the Birts do. be all arrogant, saying we're better because we use the metric system and then use them both interchangeably, kinda like they do with football and soccer.
At 7/3/11 01:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 7/3/11 01:05 PM, poxpower wrote: Are we going to change the planet's names too? Wow, Jupiter, that's offensive to Christians because it's a reference to polytheism!Who knows? In the past ten years we lost Pluto, and I am still bitter.
(In the voice of Mickey Mouse) "OH God! You shot Pluto! Why?!"
I still refuse to accept that Pluto is not a planet. I was taught there were 9 planets and I will always remember it as being 9 planets.
Lots of things has stupid names. Get on changing to the metric system instead.Too lazy to adopt the metric system, and anyway, Kms are just too short to be a good measurement. I say we do what the Birts do. be all arrogant, saying we're better because we use the metric system and then use them both interchangeably, kinda like they do with football and soccer.
We already kinda do that since anyone going into a scientific field in the U.S. has to learn how to be able to switch between the english and metric systems at any time and all the nutrition labels on our food is in metric now. We use miles and feet for travel but we use grams and liters for our food.
on The Day of the Sun, the 3rd day of the month of Julius Caesar, in the year of our lord and savior Jesus Christ 2011 (Obama 3), at 5 minutes past the hour of One, Post Merdiem, poxpower wrote:
Are we going to change the planet's names too? Wow, Jupiter, that's offensive to Christians because it's a reference to polytheism!
actually that would be a reason to keep it... except it is the name of a god, which the atheists hate.. change it. We should change Venus to Al Gore, you know for the rampant greenhouse effect of the planet.
Lots of things has stupid names. Get on changing to the metric system instead.
Given that the names of our months have to go with roman culture as well, maybe we should change them as well. Japan has a GREAT way to name months. (month number) (moon) example. January is Ichigatsu (moon one or 1st moon) Because obviously, people of other cultures simply cannot just understand western culture. no one knows why, but those not born into western culture must be made many accommodations because they simply are incapable of understanding western culture as is. Oddly enough it has something to do with things that have arisen our of ancient culture that are references to religion.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 7/3/11 03:07 PM, djack wrote: (In the voice of Mickey Mouse) "OH God! You shot Pluto! Why?!"
I still refuse to accept that Pluto is not a planet. I was taught there were 9 planets and I will always remember it as being 9 planets.
Yeah, scientific mistakes shouldn't be corrected if we're already comfortable with them. There's hundreds of Pluto-sized objects that might as well be considered planets if Pluto is going to be considered one. Why people decided to get upset by the change, I'll never know.
What the fuck does that have to do with BCE/CE and political correctness anyways?
At 7/3/11 09:23 AM, Korriken wrote: I never said it was being carried out by the government, you just assume I did.
I know that you never said that, I was just pointing out that this isn't a form of censorship. Thinking back I'm not sure where I was going with that though.
Because its another case of 'let's change something for the sake of changing something!"
But why does it matter? It's been changed, and since it's virtually the same there would be little to no point in changing it back.
At 7/3/11 04:06 PM, bgraybr wrote:
But why does it matter? It's been changed, and since it's virtually the same there would be little to no point in changing it back.
the point is to not make stupid changes in the first place. oddly enough its the 'intellectuals who keep making pointless symbolic changes that really change nothing, or are detrimental changes while things that NEED to me changed remain the same.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 7/3/11 04:24 PM, Korriken wrote: the point is to not make stupid changes in the first place. oddly enough its the 'intellectuals who keep making pointless symbolic changes that really change nothing, or are detrimental changes while things that NEED to me changed remain the same.
What do you think needs to be changed then?
As an example, the change to the metric system hasn't been made in daily life because Americans are used to the old system and there's no incentives to change. Doing so is out of the scope of these "intellectuals".
However, the switch to the metric system has already been made in the scientific community.
Anyways, this symbolic change didn't cost a significant amount of time or money. It wasn't detrimental in any way. It was, as you put it- pointless and symbolic. So is complaining about it.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
