View Single Post
Old May 2 2012, 11:06 PM   #834
RJDiogenes
Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion
 
RJDiogenes's Avatar
 
Location: RJDiogenes of Boston
Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

^^ It's even a one-word name that starts with the letter "A."

Christopher wrote: View Post
You're not even listening, are you? I've already stated twice that there was no year 0. Neither was there a year 1, a year 2, a year 3, etc. The Julian calendar was invented in the year we now call 525 CE, and it was only gradually adopted over the subsequent centuries. There's no evidence that even the Catholic Church used it prior to the tenth century. So that kneejerk "No year 0" argument you're regurgitating is based on the completely false and historically ignorant assumption that there was a "year 1." Which there wasn't. There was no year 1 through 524 inclusive. The calendar started in 525 at the very earliest. Which means that if you insist on defining the start of a century by when people started counting years according to our calendar, then the 21st century wouldn't begin until 2525. It's a silly and meaningless standard to insist upon.
And, of course, that makes no sense at all. There is a Year 1, 2 and 3 and so on. You can look them up if you want. Saying that there was no year 1 because the calendar was adopted later is ridiculous. You know better than that.

Only in retrospective discussions by historians centuries later. Nobody who actually lived in that time used those dates.
No kidding? Really? Nobody called an ankylosaurus an ankylosaurus when they were around either; but that's what we call them now and if you call one a turtle you're wrong.

The date you refer to retroactively as 1 CE would've been known at the time as 754 AUC in the Roman calendar, 3761 in the Hebrew calendar, 7.17.19.1.4 in the Maya calendar, and Year 57 of Cycle 44, Year of the Monkey, in the Chinese calendar. And it was 641 years before what Muslims (who make up nearly a quarter of the world's population) would call "Year 1."
Cool. But we don't use those calendars, do we?

The calendar is an arbitrary invention used to communicate ideas to human beings. It has no intrinsic cosmic reality.
Great. In order to justify your mistake, you've just argued against any form of language or measuring system.

As with any form of communication, the "right" usage is the one that conveys information to the most people. Billions of people commemorated the arrival of 2000 as the start of the new millennium; that was real and meaningful to them.
But they were wrong.

The only people who celebrated 2001 as the start of the millennium were a smattering of lonely prescriptivist pedants like you.
We're neither a smattering nor lonely. What you're doing here is acting exactly as I described earlier. Anybody who has high standards, who prefers to be right rather than wrong and who won't be dragged down to the lowest common denominator is a lonely pedant who needs to get a life and move out of their mommy's basement. Why? Because that's all you've got. You're not stupid, Christopher. You know the world is full of intellectuals, scientists, educated lay people and various and sundry others who know how to count to a hundred and can therefore figure out when the 21st century began. But you resort to fanboy politics. Thanks for proving me right again.


A couple of decades ago, I was one of those pedants, but then I learned how ignorant I was, and I'm very glad I outgrew it. It's amazing how fanatical some folks get over something this trivial. My post about this subject on my blog was the single most controversial post I've ever made, which is ridiculous because it's such a fundamentally unimportant subject. (In fact, why am I wasting so much time on it?)
In other words, you were right but you let yourself be bullied into taking the low road, like so many others have. So the common people decided the 21st century started a year early and you went along with them. The common people use the word ironic incorrectly, so you redefine the term. The common people don't know what science fiction is, so you include ghosts and goblins. If enough people think a dolphin is a fish, will you want to restructure taxonomy? If enough people tell you that Creationism is a science will you be in favor of teaching it in school? If enough people don't know the difference between "there" and "they're" will you want to rewrite the dictionary? How low are you willing to let your standards fall?
__________________
Please stop by my Gallery and YouTube Page for a visit. And read Trunkards!
RJDiogenes is offline   Reply With Quote