posted
That's true for the BC bit, I suppose. I don't read a lot of classical history, but what little I've read does definitely use some kind of annotation, now that you mention it.
So, I stand corrected on that bit. Thanks.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. Most of my history reading these day is classical (except for Irish History) and most recent books have already adopted BCE/CE without a lot of fuss.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Roman history I have read uses BCE/CE. I think it is a good idea because it is more accurate - wasn't Christ actually born in 2 or 3 A.D., we think? Especially when you are talking about the years exactly around that time, a year or two off is a big deal.
Added: Hey! Like the metric system! Maybe as an American, I think of the BCE/CE as the scholarly system and A.D. as the cultural system. *muses*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plenty of science writing that refers to past events in human history use BCE/CE. I saw it a lot in anthropology papers that I read while taking a course on the history of food.
On the other hand, a lot of works that discuss events that happened before human history tend to use kya or mya (thousands/millions of years ago). Obviously, this wouldn't work for more recent dates, but mya means the same thing whether it's 1950 or 2007. What do you all think about that style of dating?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and if we switched to metric, we wouldn't have silly mix-ups like the one that crashed one of the Mars probes. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's a moral issue, but I think moving in the direction of metric is a good idea.
Plus, it's a pain to do engineering problems that are given in English units. And even worse when it's a mix of English and metric. Think of the poor students! Switch to metric!
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let me say very clearly that I"m not, I wasn't, arguing for using AD, or for people being forced to use it. I was exploring the issue of necessity.
But since you bring it up, for times when it's necessary to use (of which I contend are still basically rare in most people's lives), why not just leave it up to the individual whether they use AD/CE or BC/BCE, then? As long as everyone understands what everyone else is saying, isn't the problem, for the most part, solved, unless someone absolutely wants to make an issue out of it, and in that case, they can plead their case to whomever or whatever they're speaking to.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Herod died in 4BCE. If Herod was still alive when Christ was born, he would have had to be born before that. The census though was listed by Josephus (so much depends on Josephus!) at about 6 CE (though it probably lasted for a while and 6 may be when it was finished). So the dates are a bit fuzzy.
And, just because I am an old aunty, "A.D." is traditionally placed before the year number. In the Year of Our Lord 2007.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, This entire issue was brought up because the conservapedia people think that using CE/BCE is an assault on their religion or something.
In most secular and mutli-faith contexts that I'm aware of, it has already become the standard to use CE/BCE.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Storm, This entire issue was brought up because the conservapedia people think that using CE/BCE is an assault on their religion or something.
In most secular and mutli-faith contexts that I'm aware of, it has already become the standard to use CE/BCE.
Isn't there also a larger issue of whether or not it is 'proper' to use CE/BCE in multi-faith contexts, and that if you don't, you are committing a breach of etiquette?
That is, if it's absurd that the conservapedia be offended, isn't it absurd for people who prefer CE/BCE to be offended edit: when AD or BC is used?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
It's not really appropriate, but I'm not exactly incensed about it nor offended by it, except in the lack of respect that often seems to go along with it (witness this thread).
In a multi-faith context, if using A.D. is to you of religious significance, do you think that it is appropriate or polite to insist on using it?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coming from the perspective of someone who doesn't really care one way or another, I think that it doesn't matter which one is used.
I think that the best form of respect is for people to respect that each person is different, as much as possible, and not to expect the other party to conform to your standard and let them do their own thing.
Using AD is no more rude than using CE. As far as can tell, the lack or presence of one or the other is offensive in equal measure to various people.
So, as a rule, I think people should be able to use AD and CE whenever they please. If someone is really offended at CE or AD, they can, on an individual basis, ask that the other person not to use it.
posted
I would guess for around the same reasons that using AD is offensive to some non-Christians--that is, they are professing something that they don't believe in/being made to conform to a standard they don't agree with.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my perspective, the debate isn't so much about what individuals use; go ahead and use what you want to on your wedding invitations. It is more about establishing an academic standard. Like acceptable formats for footnotes, etc. And that ship has pretty much sailed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are you professing by using Common Era?
edit: The only case I see is that they think that people should be using A.D., which seems to me to be saying that they want other people to follow their religious convictions. I don't think it is rude to not accede when someone says "Hey you. You have to follow my religion."
posted
Squick, you're trying to censor other people's language - not just your own. No one needs to explain why that is rude.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What are you professing by using Common Era?
That you don't, uh, love Jesus? That in some way there's something wrong with Christianity?
I think an equivalent question is why people care when someone uses 'AD'? What are they professing by letting other people use AD?
quote:
edit: The only case I see is that they think that people should be using A.D., which seems to me to be saying that they want other peopel to follow their religious convictions. I don't think it is rude to not accede when someone says "Hey you. You have to follow my religion." [/qb]
Yeah, I agree that people shouldn't have to use CE or AD if they don't want to. *shrug*
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, How so? I'm not aware of trying to censor anyone.
Also, you're not going to answer or stand behind your statements, are you? In case you are wondering, the adult thing to do is acknowledge you were wrong and appologize.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, How is using CE saying to anyone that they need to follow someone else's religion?
edit:
quote:That you don't, uh, love Jesus? That in some way there's something wrong with Christianity?
How does this follow? There are plenty of people on this thread who presumably love Jesus and like Christianity that say that they use CE. Are you saying that they actually don't do these things?
posted
I have never seen anyone say that people shouldn't be free to use AD in their personal writing/speaking. The issue has only come up because the editors of a document have chosen to use CE/BCE, as is their right, and some people are declaring that an attack on Christianity.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't any more censoring speech than having an accepted form of footnoting is censoring speech. Or having the post office ask that you use "MO" to abbreviate Missouri instead of "Miss.".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Storm, How is using CE saying to anyone that they need to follow someone else's religion?
Squicky, I've already answered your question adequately.
To repeat:
quote: I would guess for around the same reasons that using AD is offensive to some non-Christians--that is, they are professing something that they don't believe in/being made to conform to a standard they don't agree with.
I am genuinely confused as to why what I'm saying is an issue.
You are trying to shoehorn a reason for offense as being made to follow someone else's religion. I don't think that's entirely accurate for reasons I've already given.
I respect that that is the standard for you, and that by following that standard, this means that there is no 'real' reason for other people not to use CE in mixed settings, but other people obviously see it differently.
For what it's worth, again, I don't really care. I'd almost certainly use CE if I needed to, because I'm not really Christian.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I have never seen anyone say that people shouldn't be free to use AD in their personal writing/speaking. The issue has only come up because the editors of a document have chosen to use CE/BCE, as is their right, and some people are declaring that an attack on Christianity.
*nod* It's silly for those people to say that.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That you don't, uh, love Jesus? That in some way there's something wrong with Christianity?
How does this follow? There are plenty of people on this thread who presumably love Jesus and like Christianity that say that they use CE. Are you saying that they actually don't do these things?
---
To me, I have no idea why you think the things that you are saying make sense. I'm not saying that as an attack or anything. I jsut can't follow the thread of your thought. You seem to me to be jumping all over the place and the things you say don't make sense to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Storm is making perfect sense and I am puzzled by anyone who can't follow it. Where, exactly, does it lose meaning for you?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, I still don't see how one person using CE is rude.
Is it just because other people want them to use AD instead?
If so, how is that not wanting someone to follow your religion?
I don't see how this would be analogous to promoting a standard that doesn't exclude people, like AD does. In that case, using AD specifically excludes people you don't believe that this is The Year of Our Lord. This is especially evident when the person using it regards it as religiously significant.
How are these situations equivilent?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, I'm really starting to wonder if you have a problem with reading comprehension. Is that you seem so confused by so many posts?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this were a romantic comedy you two would be falling into each other's arms in about 40 minutes.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, Storm said that using CE is professing that you don't love Jesus and that there is something wrong with Christianity. dkw and boots both have said they use CE.
edit: And, again, I would ask you to try to keep a civil tone. [/edit]
Noemon, I really dislike it when you and your clique mates do that. I don't think people's bad behavior should be excused or covered for because you like them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, I thought it was funny. Horribly inaccurate for the situation and I think romantic comedies should probably answer for a lot of crappy relationships out there, but the remark is really funny.
quote:Storm said that using CE is professing that you don't love Jesus and that there is something wrong with Christianity. dkw and boots both have said they use CE.
I don't think this made your case as well as you think it did.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
AD has a specific historic/religious/traditional value. For some it is a positive value; for others it is a negative value.
CE is value neutral.
It makes sense, to me, that in situations where you don't need the historical/religious/traditional value, one would use the value neutral CE. This seems to have made sense to most of academia as well.
It seems to me that Conservapedia has decided that CE has a negative value because it is "anti-AD".
Don't I get to fall into anybody's arms?
Squicky, you read my posts okay.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really dislike it when you and your clique mates do that. I don't think people's bad behavior should be excused or covered for because you like them.
What is it that makes you leap to this popularity complex of yours? Is it impossible to imagine that someone might not agree with your assessment of others' behaviors? Or, in this case, decide to make a joke that I'm pretty sure would have been made regardless of the popularity level of those involved.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was actually thinking about the romantic comedy thing the other day (I, unfortunately, watched One Fine Day, which uses that trope), and I think I know why they do it - it's an easily surmountable obstacle. For there to be tension, there must be an obstacle, but for there to be a happy ending, it can't be a real one, like religion or one doesn't want ot be a stepparent or there's a personality clash. So the "first they hate each other but once they get to know each other they like what they got tok know" is a convenient obstacle that resolves itself as the protagonists spend time together.
<edited - never mind - not getting into it>
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots, That's part of it. I don't get nasty. It's just kat. But I also don't back down. And then Noemon, or Scott, or Rakeesh, or Dag, or some other member of the clique comes in and attacks me or equates our behavior or lies about me or whatever.
It happens over and over and over and I just can't find any way to stop it. It's not fair and I don't think it's good for the state of discussions on the forum. And I'm just so tired of it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I refuse to participate in this conversation, and I don't appreciate being the subject of it.
Back to calendar eras!
Ethiopia is about six or seven years off because they use a slightly different estimation of the birth of Christ, at least according to Wikipedia.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how this would be analogous to promoting a standard that doesn't exclude people, like AD does. In that case, using AD specifically excludes people you don't believe that this is The Year of Our Lord. This is especially evident when the person using it regards it as religiously significant.
Only if the person purportedly excluded uses an interpretation that several others don't use.
Just as some atheists have an interpretation of A.D. that creates a feeling of exclusion (Tom) and some atheists have an interpretation that has nothing to do with religion (Pix), some Christians see making changes to long-accepted conventions solely to exclude references to religion as an attack (apparently those at Conservapedia), some Christians view it as a sign of respect for what A.D. signifies (dkw, if I interpreted her right), and some Christians don't care.
If I'm understanding Storm's point, it's that the negative feelings on both sides - atheists who don't like AD and Christians who don't like CE - arise from interpretations that are not universal. Therefore, in some fashion, they are choosing to have those negative feelings by choosing to use the interpretation that leads to them.
This is the point of equivalence.
Storm, please correct me if I mis-summarized.
Personally, I'm happy using either convention if required by the relevant style guide. In my personal writing, I use A.D. out of habit.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, But Storm has repeatedly said that people's feelings aren't an adequate basis for deciding things like this, so to me, that rules out an equivilence based on just the feelings involved.
edit: I've also addressed this in my posts to him, or at least I think I have, showing why I see a dimension involved that discriminates between the two.
---
It looks like boots last post also addresses this from a somewhat similar perspective.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, But Storm has repeatedly said that people's feelings aren't an adequate basis for deciding things like this, so to me, that rules out an equivilence based on just the feelings involved.
I'm pretty sure that's his point (if not, I can't make heads or tails out of this thread at all) - feelings aren't an adequate basis for reaching such conclusions. Both conclusions are based on feelings. Therefore both conclusions are inadequate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I pointed out in my edit, people have been advancing differences that don't rely on feelings.
Me working on Sunday and someone harrassing me for working on Sunday aren't equivilent even if they both engender the same feelings.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
