It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Student penalized for using word ‘man’ on his essay

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: RedDragon
I don't see the problem. Mankind is an outdated term and people are supposed to learn to use correct English in college. I guess your local dialect might use the term "man" interchangeably with "human" but you can't speak like that in a professional setting. It's pretty much like ebonics



Well the truth is that the term "mankind" or "man" as in mankind is only obsolete to a bunch of gender bigots. Man means nothing political. You have like male and female.....both male really as man, human ect. Its only a problem to a bunch of nut jobs and bitc##s.


Throw transgenderism in to the mix and watch their heads explode.

Since one can turn oneself in to the other.



This is about anti-traditional hetro male......right.....everyone get that? LOL

Man I was in college back in the late 90s and they were talking this he/she stuff in printed page. Couldn't say he had to say he/she. Folks don't understand how bad these fems are where you find them. I men the sort of females that really don't seek equality ect but are gender superiorist.


If the gender is ambiguous then it's grammatically and definitionally wrong to just say he. You have to say he/ she. It's proper use of the English language. Like I said earlier, a lot of you grew up speaking local dialects where you use "man" to refer to both genders a la "fireman" -- should be fireperson, "he" to refer to an ambiguous gender like god..

It actually doesn't even make sense -- you see how you lose meaning in those examples. It's exactly like ebonics. It's a dialect that uses the English language incorrectly and needs to be corrected in the classroom. You need to learn to speak proper English in the classroom so that you don't offend anyone with meanings that you didn't really intend in a professional setting. Proper English is necessary in the workplace.
edit on 5/2/17 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 2 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Man that sucks .



posted on May, 2 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: RedDragon

What are the challenging times?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: RedDragon
I don't see the problem. Mankind is an outdated term and people are supposed to learn to use correct English in college. I guess your local dialect might use the term "man" interchangeably with "human" but you can't speak like that in a professional setting. It's pretty much like ebonics

It IS correct English. It's use is in decline because of political correctness, but the term is still in use and valid. The only reason to dock someone for using it is if you are trying to enforce political correctness.

This professor is claiming this has nothing to do with being PC, therefore no points should be deducted.
edit on 3-5-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I don't think this is some lefty conspiracy. If you are learning a subject you need to understand the terminology relevant to that subject.

Back when I did my certificate in humanities with the OU we had to date things as BCE and CE (Before Common Era and Common Era, respectively) rather than BC and AD.

I am sure if I had written AD or BC I would have lost a mark or two.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

The whole reason of switching to BCE was for political correctness.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SprocketUK

The whole reason of switching to BCE was for political correctness.


Or to reflect the fact that we aren't all Christians anymore. That's probably a less loaded way of putting it.
Even discounting people from countries that don't practice Christianity, in countries like the UK we have large numbers of native people who are Buddhist, Sikh, Atheist, Islamic and even Jedi now, so rather than force everyone to date things from the best guess birthday of a possibly fictional person, just call it common era and be done with it.

The only people getting offended are those trying to force everyone to recognise their particular favourite fairy story as "The important one."

On my birth certificate it says Church of England...simply because that's what most people list as their religion.
Like most Brits I only ever go to church for hatches, matches and dispatches.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SprocketUK

The whole reason of switching to BCE was for political correctness.


Or to reflect the fact that we aren't all Christians anymore. That's probably a less loaded way of putting it.

Whether you agree with it or not, it was done for political correctness. PC is not always bad, the problem is it has run amok and unchecked and it can not be questioned.

Just curious though, we are in 2017 CE ... what event signified the end of the old era and makes this the Current Era?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
If you hypothesize the bread path of humanity, Man just makes more sense than woman. The first evolution was miracle, and he then reproduced with neanderthal. This produced a Woman that was more evolved than neanderthal, and she bread with the same man, and this in turn created us eventually.

An evolved man can create man copies to reallocate the systems norm itself. An evolved Woman's genome is tainted with each generation. Thus if the first Miracle was a woman, it would only live on through her sons, and for few generations without interbreed for the females of that path, as opposed to a Man spreading the new genome as freely as he pleases.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

This is absurd. That professor should be fired! Things have gone waaay too far out of hand.

Universities should not be about education.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SprocketUK

The whole reason of switching to BCE was for political correctness.


Or to reflect the fact that we aren't all Christians anymore. That's probably a less loaded way of putting it.

Whether you agree with it or not, it was done for political correctness. PC is not always bad, the problem is it has run amok and unchecked and it can not be questioned.

Just curious though, we are in 2017 CE ... what event signified the end of the old era and makes this the Current Era?


As we all know its the arbitrary date attributed to the birth of Christ, according to the Roman Empire some years later.
We only use that dating method because they needed an empire wide religion to keep the poor in their place with the promise of "jam tomorrow" if they kept their heads down and worked hard, paid their taxes etc.

Still, is it a big deal to call it common era since actual, honest to God, church going Christians are a minority in the developed world now?

Hell, nobody moans at the Chinese for having a different calendar...or the Jews for that matter.
When you think of the native religion up here in Northern Europe, maybe we should be dating things from The death of Baldur or something? Rather than an imported religion, forced upon everyone at the point of a sword many years ago?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Still, is it a big deal to call it common era since actual, honest to God, church going Christians are a minority in the developed world now?

We both agree the date is tied to Jesus, so it makes little sense to hide that. Now, let me explain why it could be a big deal.

Let's say something big happens, and a new CE starts. If it started tomorrow, what we think of now as being 30 BCE would become 2047 BCE overnight.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Still, is it a big deal to call it common era since actual, honest to God, church going Christians are a minority in the developed world now?

We both agree the date is tied to Jesus, so it makes little sense to hide that. Now, let me explain why it could be a big deal.

Let's say something big happens, and a new CE starts. If it started tomorrow, what we think of now as being 30 BCE would become 2047 BCE overnight.


Bit still, t's as arbitrary as the whole BF and AF dates in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. (Before and after Ford for those who haven't read it).

Simply changing from BC to BCE doesn't actually change anything other than remove the name of a single religion's god figure from the date. The years are the same.

I don't know what would have to happen for us to have a year zero. Some global catastrophe maybe, or the beginning of a human diaspora among the stars.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Actually if you left it the way it was, then anything BC would stay the same if we entered a new Era. And anything AD would stay the same.

If we choose BCE and CE, then when a new CE appears, it would alter everything.

If a new Era started now, then 2016 would be 1 BCE.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SprocketUK

Actually if you left it the way it was, then anything BC would stay the same if we entered a new Era. And anything AD would stay the same.

If we choose BCE and CE, then when a new CE appears, it would alter everything.

If a new Era started now, then 2016 would be 1 BCE.


By that reckoning we would have Before Christ, then Anno Domini Just the same as Before Common Era and Common Era.

If you went to year zero, then 1000 BCE (Or BC) would become 3017 BCE.

Your post seems to indicate that you think we would have a BC date, then an AD date followed by the "new" date.
Maybe I misread it, but I have looked at it three times now. So if I have your intent wrong, clarifying it would be cool



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Exactly, 100 BC would ALWAYS be 100 BC. 2016 AD would always be 2016 AD. And then we would go to whatever the new event is. Year 1 ANH (After Nuclear Holocaust).

With BCE and CE the old era can never be the old era, and two era's ago can never be BCE.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SprocketUK

Exactly, 100 BC would ALWAYS be 100 BC. 2016 AD would always be 2016 AD. And then we would go to whatever the new event is. Year 1 ANH (After Nuclear Holocaust).

With BCE and CE the old era can never be the old era, and two era's ago can never be BCE.


So three date schemes? Sounds like a right ball ache.

I'd be way happier with Before Thing and After Thing. Imagine the maths about a thousand years after the new thing.

100BC, then 1000BT then 999AT.....how many years ago is 1000BC ?(If you don't know the exact year of the new Thing?)


Simplicity aside, is it really an issue that upsets anyone to not have Before Christ, but instead Before Common Era? Its only 1 extra letter as an acronym, hardly the end of the world is it?

Not really in the same league as the PC rubbish that tries to devalue the achievements of DWM's in the name of "equality" That's the stuff that ought to be fought, not protecting a particular religion's place in the secular world in this way.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

So three date schemes? Sounds like a right ball ache.

No, one scheme. What year were you born? 1985 or 31 BCE?

I agree, definitely a headache, just in the opposite direction. You'd have everyone giving different dates for the exact same events.

When something happened 50 BCE are we talking about 50 BC or 1966 AD? They would both be 50 BCE depending on the person speaking.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The way I see it is if we changed tomorrow, 1917 would be 100 BCE. 1017 would be 1000 BCE and 1000 years before the birth of Jesus would simply be 3017 BCE, and everything else would be a CE date going forward.


Much simpler.


But as it stands, BC dates are the SAME as BCE dates, so we don't even have to do any maths, do we?
Like I said, no biggie and something that people have to put a bit of effort into in order to be "offended" by, isn't it?



The same is true for the Mankind/Man thing, really. Man is the shorthand for human, and as such, intellectually, we know it means the species in certain contexts. I personally don't have an issue with it, but can understand why some get overly sensitive and want to further clarify in order not to have a bunch of fat, smelly uber feminists hanging around outside their office after class.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The way I see it is if we changed tomorrow, 1917 would be 100 BCE. 1017 would be 1000 BCE and 1000 years before the birth of Jesus would simply be 3017 BCE, and everything else would be a CE date going forward.


Much simpler.


So changing every single date is simpler than changing nothing? I don't know how that is possible.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join