Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should the year be changed?

  • 31-10-2011 3:34pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭


    This may have been asked before and if so, ignore/delete away.

    Do you think the year should be changed, since it rests on the fundamental designation of the epoch of Christ?
    The precise date being different from that of the actual conception seems to be beside the point as the AD/BC disinction is claimed to be of that event regardless.
    I notice that there is the CE/BCE distinction, but this doesn't appear to change anything about the number system used, i.e. the numbering still points towards the beginning of a certain epoch or (important) event at year 1.

    Just curious.


Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    .....................................................................................................................................no..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,986 ✭✭✭✭mikemac


    Do you something like the French Repulican calender OP?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar

    Ten days a week, thirty days a month and every day has its own name?

    Well that didn't last long


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    18AD wrote: »
    This may have been asked before and if so, ignore/delete away.

    Do you think the year should be changed, since it rests on the fundamental designation of the epoch of Christ?
    The precise date being different from that of the actual conception seems to be beside the point as the AD/BC disinction is claimed to be of that event regardless.
    I notice that there is the CE/BCE distinction, but this doesn't appear to change anything about the number system used, i.e. the numbering still points towards the beginning of a certain epoch or (important) event at year 1.

    Just curious.

    Pol Pot already had that idea, he called it "year zero" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,428 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ^^^ Not bad. Thread godwinned in 92 minutes on a bank holiday Monday afternoon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    I'm sure plenty of people have had the same idea. There are plenty of different calendars.
    My personal favourite is the Discordian Calendar.
    http://principiadiscordia.com/book/41.php

    I was merely asking about a change of the year, i.e. 2011.

    I have no stance on this myself.

    EDIT: To the Pol Pot comment. Are you insinuating that changing the date has to do with oppressive political positions? Or are you just ascribing these characteristics to me? :(


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Any definition of the year should purely be decided upon astronomical grounds.:cool:

    We could very practically tie year one to the occurrence of a supernova which for a empiricist like me makes me a lot more comfortable than a vague supposition of when Common era began. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Pol Pot already had that idea, he called it "year zero" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

    Christians had this idea first. They called it the "Rapture".:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    robindch wrote: »
    ^^^ Not bad. Thread godwinned in 92 minutes on a bank holiday Monday afternoon.

    3 minutes before attempting to try and cover up and silence the behaviour of Dictators and Nazis with an internet meme, not bad.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    3 minutes before attempting to try and cover up and silence the behaviour of Dictators and Nazis with an internet meme, not bad.

    Quite an extraordinary set of the irrational roots you must have there. Since when does pointing out Godwin's law equate to covering up the action of dictators and nazis? Does -b even work for you?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Any definition of the year should purely be decided upon astronomical grounds.:cool:

    We could very practically tie year one to the occurrence of a supernova which for a empiricist like me makes me a lot more comfortable than a vague supposition of when Common era began. :)

    It would be kind of cool to have the year as a huge exponential number. I'm not really up on my maths terminology but I think thats right.

    The year 1.373x10^10 :p

    EDIT: Would there also be a beautiful irony in setting the theory of relativity as the start date?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,891 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    robindch wrote: »
    ^^^ Not bad. Thread godwinned in 92 minutes on a bank holiday Monday afternoon.
    hardly a godwin when the point is actually relevant...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    hardly a godwin when the point is actually relevant...

    Leaving aside the fact that point is probably not even remotely relevant to the OP, even if it was it would still be classes as a Godwin. :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    18AD wrote: »

    EDIT: Would there also be a beautiful irony in setting the theory of relativity as the start date?

    Galilean Relativity yes as it could probably be earmarked as the beginning of modern science. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Quite an extraordinary set of the irrational roots you must have there. Since when does pointing out Godwin's law equate to covering up the action of dictators and nazis? Does -b even work for you?

    Grade E. Back to school for you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Grade E. Back to school for you.

    It's a fecking bank holiday! !


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭EI_Flyboy


    I really don't know if there's any real reason to change the year unless some event worth marking as day dot occurs that supercedes the birth of an alleged messiah. What I do think should be changed or dropped is that stupid CE/BCE horsecrap, if people have such a problem with having Christ in the dating system, they should use their own or come up with another instead of showing what a bunch of emptyheaded reactionaries they are by demanding the renaming of an established system. Imagine having to reprint I don't know how many text books to appease some small minded zealots. That's just me though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    EI_Flyboy wrote: »
    I really don't know if there's any real reason to change the year unless some event worth marking as day dot occurs that supercedes the birth of an alleged messiah. What I do think should be changed or dropped is that stupid CE/BCE horsecrap, if people have such a problem with having Christ in the dating system, they should use their own or come up with another instead of showing what a bunch of emptyheaded reactionaries they are by demanding the renaming of an established system. Imagine having to reprint I don't know how many text books to appease some small minded zealots. That's just me though.

    Only you see the thing is a large proportion of text books already use BCE and CE. I've been using the terminology almost over a decade now. :)
    Not to mention, many textbooks are riddled with errors and needs to be kept up to date anyways.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭EI_Flyboy


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Only you see the thing is a large proportion of text books already use BCE and CE. I've been using the terminology almost over a decade now. :)
    Not to mention, many textbooks are riddled with errors and needs to be kept up to date anyways.

    Well I didn't think it happened yesterday!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    EI_Flyboy wrote: »
    Well I didn't think it happened yesterday!

    Yep but the "demanding" only happened recently. Not as if any demand was actually necessary it was just something that happened.:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    EI_Flyboy wrote: »
    I really don't know if there's any real reason to change the year unless some event worth marking as day dot occurs that supercedes the birth of an alleged messiah. What I do think should be changed or dropped is that stupid CE/BCE horsecrap, if people have such a problem with having Christ in the dating system, they should use their own or come up with another instead of showing what a bunch of emptyheaded reactionaries they are by demanding the renaming of an established system. Imagine having to reprint I don't know how many text books to appease some small minded zealots. That's just me though.

    But that's what they did. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    Use BP as a basis for your own, personal calendar. Tell nobody, explain nothing, talk about your holiday plans for 62.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    I agree. Although here's my suggestion. It has been suggested that our generation will be the peak of human population numbers. Therefore it is only fitting that we mark this by naming the years not by numbers but by our favourite 1980s cartoons.

    I recomend maybe going for a decade theme so maybe instead of the "20's" it would be "Thundercats" see below, the left column states the year in the current system and the right in the new, more awsome system

    2020 Thundercats: Pilot
    2021 Thundercats: Berbils
    2022 Thundercats: The Slaves of Castle Plun-darr

    and so on until we run out of episodes. Then it moves to

    2171 M.A.S.K.: The deathzone
    2172 M.A.S.K.:The start chariot
    2173 M.A.S.K.: The book of power

    then Bravestar, He-man, Mysterious cities of gold, transformers etc until we are all destroyed in a horrible war somehow


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    I agree. Although here's my suggestion. It has been suggested that our generation will be the peak of human population numbers. Therefore it is only fitting that we mark this by naming the years not by numbers but by our favourite 1980s cartoons.

    I recomend maybe going for a decade theme so maybe instead of the "20's" it would be "Thundercats" see below, the left column states the year in the current system and the right in the new, more awsome system

    2020 Thundercats: Pilot
    2021 Thundercats: Berbils
    2022 Thundercats: The Slaves of Castle Plun-darr

    and so on until we run out of episodes. Then it moves to

    2171 M.A.S.K.: The deathzone
    2172 M.A.S.K.:The start chariot
    2173 M.A.S.K.: The book of power

    then Bravestar, He-man, Mysterious cities of gold, transformers etc until we are all destroyed in a horrible war somehow

    Ghostbusterians vs Transformerists?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Ghostbusterians vs Transformerists?

    There are no ghostbusterians in our country. That is something that only exists in the decadent west.

    around castlebar mostly


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Any notion of years is simply a counting system from an arbitrary point in time. I see no logic in swapping one arbitrary point out for another just because one has a religious basis.

    We don't seem to be very good at managing to keep count for more than a couple of thousand years anyway, so no doubt some other timing system will be along shortly.

    I propose direct conversion to decimal. That makes it now March 4th, 2414.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭EI_Flyboy


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    But that's what they did. :confused:

    They're still using the Gregorian calendar which uses Christ's birth as day one. Common Era is a secular term often used so as not to upset non-Christians because for some reason this fools them into thinking they're not using a Christian calendar. CE and BCE have also been used to abbreviate Christian Era and Before Christian Era which, to my mind, points out how daft it is to secularise religious inventions for the sensitive. Again, that's probably just me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    EI_Flyboy wrote: »
    They're still using the Gregorian calendar which uses Christ's birth as day one. Common Era is a secular term often used so as not to upset non-Christians because for some reason this fools them into thinking they're not using a Christian calendar. CE and BCE have also been used to abbreviate Christian Era and Before Christian Era which, to my mind, points out how daft it is to secularise religious inventions for the sensitive. Again, that's probably just me.
    Actually I suspect it's not to "fool" anyone into thinking they're not using a non-Christian calendar, but rather because "AD" refers to "the year of our lord", which of course is a declaration which many people using that numbering system don't subscribe to. I suspect it offends non-Christian religious people more than non-religious people.

    It would be the same as having a unit of weight known as the "WAM". 1 WAM being roughly equivalent to 1kg. Of course "WAM" refers to the "Weight Decree of Almighty Muhammed", so although it's just an arbitrary measurement, the title of it implies some kind of religous adherence to Muhammed's word.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    There are no ghostbusterians in our country. That is something that only exists in the decadent west.

    around castlebar mostly

    You see, it's this kind of blatant discrimination against Ghostbusterians that makes many of us afraid to speak up and defend ourselves.

    End the tyranny!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    EI_Flyboy wrote: »
    They're still using the Gregorian calendar which uses Christ's birth as day one. Common Era is a secular term often used so as not to upset non-Christians because for some reason this fools them into thinking they're not using a Christian calendar. CE and BCE have also been used to abbreviate Christian Era and Before Christian Era which, to my mind, points out how daft it is to secularise religious inventions for the sensitive. Again, that's probably just me.

    First of all Day 1 is Jan 1st not Dec 25th but anywho.. The thing is it's a perfectly functional calendar but some will argue that it's reference to a living deity at it's reason to call year 1 year 1 is incorrect but as it's only an arbitrary problem a simply renaming works. Would you rather we completely overhauled the system and all had to change how we recorded dates just because of a minor disagreement?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    You see, it's this kind of blatant discrimination against Ghostbusterians that makes many of us afraid to speak up and defend ourselves.

    End the tyranny!

    yeah well you shouldnt have killed our lord vigo


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    What year do you guys believe it is ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    What year do you guys believe it is ?

    Stardate 65335.6 (year 2388)

    Or maybe just 2011, it's not so much something you believe in as a standard format that's adhered to.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    What year do you guys believe it is ?
    It's the year of Arnold of course.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    It's the year of Arnold of course.

    Arnold, who's Arnold?

    /reference

    But in all seriousness its 172PNG (Post Noodley Goodness) It's much better now than in the dark days pre Noodley Goodness (pNG)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    fitz0 wrote: »
    But in all seriousness its 172PNG (Post Noodley Goodness) It's much better now than in the dark days pre Noodley Goodness (pNG)

    Indeed. I was so happy when the FSM came down from above and defeated the Patato-Titans. Shower of bland **** the lot of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Its the year Yellow


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 527 ✭✭✭Mistress 69


    51Y8RHY590L._SL500_AA300_.jpg Leave well enough alone.. a BC Club Orange poster


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    51Y8RHY590L._SL500_AA300_.jpg Leave well enough alone.. a BC Club Orange poster

    i agree with whatever the hell was written after the picture


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 238 ✭✭dmw07


    What year do you guys believe it is ?

    I'm pretty much anti everything that doesn't make me smile, so i don't believe that any year exists.

    If however you asked, what year do you THINK it is. I would have answered.

    Simple mistake i'm sure. Believe, think. Same diff. Right...


Advertisement