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.
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 Mankind is an outdated term and people are supposed to learn to use correct English in college.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.
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 Mankind is an outdated term and people are supposed to learn to use correct English in college.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
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: SprocketUK
The whole reason of switching to BCE was for political correctness.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: SprocketUK
So three date schemes? Sounds like a right ball ache.
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.