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

BBC to scrap the use of AD and BC,polical correctness gone mad.

Options
245678

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Bride2012
    Registered Users Posts: 294 ✭✭Bride2012


    I think that Australia changed it recently too.


  • Options
    #33
    westendgirlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,125 ✭✭✭westendgirlie


    I have no idean what bce/ce means ?


  • Options
    #34
    4leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Well, none of those other things are being changed, so that's irrelevant.

    If BC/AD doesn't do any harm, and BCE/CE doesn't do any harm, then what's the problem?

    OK so why pick BC/AD out of the whole bunch of religion in our calendar. I think Tuesday should go name after Mars the God of WAR, it creeps against my pacifist nature.

    So why is BC/AD suddenly relevant??


  • Options
    #35
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    zerks wrote: »
    Like it or not the Islands of The UK and Ireland are predominantly Christian but the UK seems to go out of it's way to pander to religious political correctness instead of letting folk practice their own faith,so long as it's not extremist rhetoric just let people on with it.

    Out of interest what practice of your faith will be affected by this? I don't know of any Christian doctrine or dogma that hinges on a system of dating.


  • Options
    #36
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    4leto wrote: »
    OK so why pick BC/AD out of the whole bunch of religion in our calendar. I think Tuesday should go name after Mars the God of WAR, it creeps against my pacifist nature.

    So why is BC/AD suddenly relevant??
    I'm not saying anything any is relevant is irrelevant. I'm just asking you what the problem is with changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE, so far, you haven't given an answer.

    Do you know why you have a problem with it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Davidor7
    Registered Users Posts: 11 ✭Davidor7


    A quote from the BBC, directly from the article (near the end of course) - "The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems".

    So the BBC is not scrapping the use of AD and BC.


  • Options
    #38
    H2UMrsRobinson
    Registered Users Posts: 763 ✭✭✭H2UMrsRobinson


    I actually can't remember the last time I was required to use either AD or BC in general day to day life. Impact this article has on 99.9999% of population ? BIG FAT ZERO !


  • Options
    #39
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Actually, I think you'll find most people don't give a shít, except Christians.

    You'll find most Christians aren't too bothered about it either I'd imagine.


  • Options
    #40
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Does the OP even pay a licence fee to the BBC FFS ?
    zerks wrote: »
    You wouldn't see a Muslim country (TM) changing things like this

    Since when has the BBC been a country ?
    zerks wrote: »
    and anyhow it's not even offensive.
    How many non-Christians have you interviewed in order to establish this ?
    zerks wrote: »
    Like it or not the Islands of The UK and Ireland are predominantly Christian
    Like it or not the UK has been predominantly agnostic for quite a few decades now. Opinions differ on whether Ireland has reached this state of enlightenment yet but the jury should be back on that one within the next decade or so.

    Oh and the United Kingdom is not an "island" -Geography fail
    zerks wrote: »
    but the UK seems to go out of it's way to pander to religious political correctness instead of letting folk practice their own faith
    So do you have any statistics for the number of individuals deported to the gulags from the UK over the last five years for practising their own faith ?
    zerks wrote: »
    It seems to be a type of religious health & safety gone mad.

    FFS at least try to be consistent about which chip on your shoulder is fuelling your persecution complex health & safety or political correctness(TM)


  • Options
    #41
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    westendgirlie wrote: »
    I have no idean what bce/ce means ?

    Before common era / common era. The still use the same split as BC/AD


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Seanchai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,401 ✭✭✭Seanchai


    Can we not just make our new god atheism? Take out every person named after a Christian saint, scrap every streetname and placename with a religious connection, burn all the churches, destroy the Book of Kells, take apart each remaining stone used in the monastic sites in Kells, Clonmacnoise, Clonard, Glendalough and destroy anything remotely connected with Christianity - holy wells, pilgrimage routes, folklore, seanfhocail and memory.

    We've moved on from all that backwardness. We are all, like, so much more enlightened than those ignorant superstitious buffoons who have gone before us. We, the current generation, represent the end of history and the first generation which knows everything.

    I think that's about the jist of what some of the Atheist fundamentals with their irreproachable "certainties" would like.


  • Options
    #43
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Can we not just make our new god atheism? Take out every person named after a Christian saint, scrap every streetname and placename with a religious connection, burn all the churches, destroy the Book of Kells, take apart each remaining stone used in the monastic sites in Kells, Clonmacnoise, Clonard, Glendalough and destroy anything remotely connected with Christianity - holy wells, pilgrimage routes, folklore, seanfhocail and memory.

    We've moved on from all that backwardness. We are all, like, so much more enlightened than those ignorant superstitious buffoons who have gone before us. We, the current generation, represent the end of history and the first generation which knows everything.

    I think that's about the jist of what some of the Atheist fundamentals with their irreproachable "certainties" would like.

    How does using BCE/CE instead of BC/AD lead to any of the above?You do kbow you can still use BC/AD if you want?!


  • Options
    #44
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Its generally accepted that insofar as someone called Jesus ever existed he would have been born no later than 2BC with most opinion putting it around 6BC so the terms BC and AD should have been dropped a long time ago on the grounds that theyre not even accurate.
    Seanchai wrote: »
    Take out every person named after a Christian saint, scrap every streetname and placename with a religious connection, burn all the churches, destroy the Book of Kells, take apart each remaining stone used in the monastic sites in Kells, Clonmacnoise, Clonard, Glendalough and destroy anything remotely connected with Christianity - holy wells, pilgrimage routes, folklore, seanfhocail and memory.

    How did you get from a made up story about dating terminology used by a broadcaster in another country to all that ?


  • Options
    #45
    4leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I'm not saying anything any is relevant is irrelevant. I'm just asking you what the problem is with changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE, so far, you haven't given an answer.

    Do you know why you have a problem with it?

    Its not that I have a problem with it as I say leave it as it is. In all I am against rewriting history, these terms have been with us for a long time in the western world, so why change them now. I know what they mean with their Christian reference and so what.

    Its more a question of what is your problem with BC/AD?? and why do you feel they should be changed??


  • Options
    #46
    Haelium
    Registered Users Posts: 412 ✭✭Haelium


    Seanchai wrote: »
    Can we not just make our new god atheism? Take out every person named after a Christian saint, scrap every streetname and placename with a religious connection, burn all the churches, destroy the Book of Kells, take apart each remaining stone used in the monastic sites in Kells, Clonmacnoise, Clonard, Glendalough and destroy anything remotely connected with Christianity - holy wells, pilgrimage routes, folklore, seanfhocail and memory.

    Yes, Atheism is a religion and Dawkins is our god. All Atheists read the god delusion every day and we have a set of rules. We all care about stuff having names with religious etymology. /sarcasm
    We are all, like, so much more enlightened than those ignorant superstitious buffoons who have gone before us.

    Well, usually generations are more enlightened than the last seeing as science is always moving forward. And yes actually, we're more educated than ever before in Ireland. Are you seriously suggesting that we don't know more about the universe today than we did 50 years ago?
    I think that's about the jist of what some of the Atheist fundamentals with their irreproachable "certainties" would like.

    How can you be certain of not believing something? Yet again somebody confuses Atheism with Anti-Theism.


  • Options
    #47
    Duckworth_Luas
    Registered Users Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭Duckworth_Luas


    Are the BBC changing their name to the BBCE or what?


  • Options
    #48
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    4leto wrote: »
    Its not that I have a problem with it as I say leave it as it is. In all I am against rewriting history, these terms have been with us for a long time in the western world, so why change them now. I know what they mean with their Christian reference and so what.

    Its more a question of what is your problem with BC/AD?? and why do you feel they should be changed??

    Honestly I really couldn't care either way, about the only real advantage is that
    a) it might be easier for people of other religions with their own dating system to use BCE/CE if it doesn't contain the christ references.
    b) it is kinda nice to have both acronyms in the same language.

    Seeing as it is such a minor change, I would consider those two reason enough. What would be your argument to keep it as BC/AD? And how exactly is it rewriting history? Do you imagine scores of people from the BBC going around with giant bottles of Tipex to all the historical sites and pencilling in BCE/CE instead?


  • Options
    #49
    Haelium
    Registered Users Posts: 412 ✭✭Haelium


    4leto wrote: »
    In all I am against rewriting history,

    How is it re-writing history? Nobody said that Jesus didn't exist, although evidence does suggest that "Jesus" was more than one person.


  • Options
    #50
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    4leto wrote: »

    Its not that I have a problem with it as I say leave it as it is. In all I am against rewriting history, these terms have been with us for a long time in the western world, so why change them now. I know what they mean with their Christian reference and so what.

    Its more a question of what is your problem with BC/AD?? and why do you feel they should be changed??

    Moot point in this case in that the BBC hasn't ditched BC/AD and presenters can use both.It's a typically sloppy article from the mail.


  • Options
    #51
    4leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    Knasher wrote: »
    Honestly I really couldn't care either way, about the only real advantage is that
    a) it might be easier for people of other religions with their own dating system to use BCE/CE if it doesn't contain the christ references.
    b) it is kinda nice to have both acronyms in the same language.

    Seeing as it is such a minor change, I would consider those two reason enough. What would be your argument to keep it as BC/AD?

    I posted my reasons in other posts.

    Basically it was if you are going to take the Christ reference from our dating system, for total fairness so as not to offend, take ALL religious significance out of the calendar.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    4leto wrote: »
    Basically it was if you are going to take the Christ reference from our dating system, for total fairness so as not to offend, take ALL religious significance out of the calendar.

    That would be a whole lot of work for very little pay-off and people would never go for it, as well you know. I think the only reason you would suggest that is because you know people would never accept it so in the end you get your way.


  • Options
    #53
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    4leto wrote: »
    Its not that I have a problem with it as I say leave it as it is. In all I am against rewriting history, these terms have been with us for a long time in the western world, so why change them now. I know what they mean with their Christian reference and so what.

    Its more a question of what is your problem with BC/AD?? and why do you feel they should be changed??
    I haven't said they should be changed.

    How is changing them re-writing history? You know what BC/AD means but you also know for BCE/CE means, this change isn't going to cause mass confusion. No one is deleting the word Jesus out of the history books.

    So far, the only argument is ''because it's always been like that''. Not good enough tbh.


  • Options
    #54
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,982 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I don't find BC or AD particularly offensive, since they have strong roots in history. There comes a time, though, when you have to say "stuff history" and focus on the future, rather than the past. That's what this looks like, to me. As usual, the Daily Mail sees progress as capitulation. I think I'm politically conservative (lower case "c"), but I don't believe in preserving the past when it's just wrong.

    PS: just saw the line "What are they going to do next? Get rid of the entire calendar on the basis that it has its roots in Christianity?"
    Um ... what? Does this guy know where our Calendar came from? The Gregorian Calendar is a slight modification of the Julian Calendar, which dates back to Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) and was in effect for most of the last 2000 years. It owes nothing to Christianity at all. Not even the names of the months.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #55
    4leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    Knasher wrote: »
    That would be a whole lot of work for very little pay-off and people would never go for it, as well you know. I think the only reason you would suggest that is because you know people would never accept it so in the end you get your way.

    No
    I just wanted to point out the stupidity of this change. As in, it is OK to scrap the Christian reference, because some may find it offensive or an exclusive reference to their present faith.

    But it is OK to leave all the other religious references in the calendar, that to me is absurd.

    It funny the Catholic church in its heyday of its power never stripped the calendar of the pagan references.


  • Options
    #56
    4leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    I haven't said they should be changed.

    How is changing them re-writing history? You know what BC/AD means but you also know for BCE/CE means, this change isn't going to cause mass confusion. No one is deleting the word Jesus out of the history books.

    So far, the only argument is ''because it's always been like that''. Not good enough tbh.
    I don't actually, but I could learn. Its not a question of deleting Jesus from the history books, the thing about history, is rewriting it, and omitting parts of it, by doing that we truly never learn from it.

    So yes I would say because that reference has been there for a long time I would say it is better to leave it.

    So I ask again I ask...You "haven't said they should be changed",,, so why does your position seem to be opposed to my position.

    Do you want the terms changed??? if so why???


  • Options
    #57
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Does the OP even pay a licence fee to the BBC FFS ?



    Since when has the BBC been a country ?


    How many non-Christians have you interviewed in order to establish this ?


    Like it or not the UK has been predominantly agnostic for quite a few decades now. Opinions differ on whether Ireland has reached this state of enlightenment yet but the jury should be back on that one within the next decade or so.

    Oh and the United Kingdom is not an "island" -Geography fail


    So do you have any statistics for the number of individuals deported to the gulags from the UK over the last five years for practice their own faith ?



    FFS at least try to be consistent about which chip on your shoulder is fuelling your persecution complex health & safety or political correctness(TM)

    UK-surrounded by water=an island,even I fell into the whole trying not to offend thing by typing UK.

    You seemed to spend a lot of time and energy picking holes in my op,if you actually took time to read it as it was then you'd see how I merely used certain phrases as comparisons such as political correctness and health & safety.

    What does the payment of a license fee to the BBC have to do with anything? You'll find that a huge percentage of Irish people watch it regularly.

    The main gist of my argument is if things aren't broke why the need to fix them.

    Your post just seemed to be a rant and nitpicking while not actually adding anything to the debate.

    Why not add your thoughts on the subject instead of overanalyising others?

    I know a certain amount of political correctness is needed with regard to racist language etc. but there seems to be a trend of it going too far even reaching into schools teaching and the wearing of religious symbols such as a crucifix on a chain around someones neck which has been banned in certain organisations in Britain (haven't heard of any similar cases here yet)-something even those which it was deemed to be offensive to found utterly ridiculous.


  • Options
    #58
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    So the new name for the BBC will be BBCE ?

    Edit : Dagnab it - beaten to it!


  • Options
    #59
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    4leto wrote: »
    No
    I just wanted to point out the stupidity of this change. As in, it is OK to scrap the Christian reference, because some may find it offensive or an exclusive reference to their present faith.

    But it is OK to leave all the other religious references in the calendar, that to me is absurd.
    I get that, I just don't think that not being able to remove all the religious references is a valid excuse to not remove some.
    4leto wrote: »
    It funny the Catholic church in its heyday of its power never stripped the calendar of the pagan references.
    I'd imagine they replaced some of it, but like me, would never expect it to be adopted if the changes they made were too wide reaching. As you said earlier, the French tried to make a metric calendar but nobody used it because it was just too different.


  • Options
    #60
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    What about readers of 2000AD and the movie 1 Million Years BC?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    zerks wrote: »
    UK-surrounded by water=an island.

    FAIL !

    zerks wrote: »
    What does the payment of a license fee to the BBC have to do with anything? You'll find that a huge percentage of Irish people watch it regularly.
    They can watch it all they like but if theye not paying then its (fictional) editorial policies are none of their business really.
    zerks wrote: »
    The main gist of my argument is if things aren't broke why the need to fix them.
    Which branch of Christianity exatly holds the sixth (and a third) birthday of their founder to be so sacrosanct ?
    zerks wrote: »
    the wearing of religious symbols such as a crucifix on a chain around someones neck which has been banned in certain organisations in Britain
    Which organisations in particular and are the organisations in question state or private owned ?


Advertisement