-Rap Music and the stupid ghetto hip-hop culture
-Overabundance of technology
-CORRUPT media executives that brainwash kids with bullshit like “Jersey Shore” and “16 and pregnant” turning young girls into sluts and telling teens in general that having no life is quite alright, there will always be some sucker out there who wants to do something with his/her life that you can take advantage of
-Politicians who basically want to destroy the middle class for good letting the rich get richer and the poor become poorer, more desperate and more murderous as opportunity gets sucked out of the world more and more
-A gigantic lack of motivation in the arts.(Movies now are 2 hours of nonstop brainless CGI action, music is computerized autotuned garbage with absolutely no substance or meaning, and television today is worse than ever when it comes to completely rotting people’s brains, etc)

IN THE END, THIS ALL COMES DOWN TO GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!! The most powerful people in society(the media, politicians, and “artists”) are dumbing down society for their own profit and they don’t give a shit!

Its sad to see society going completely down the toilet. We are only eleven years into the 2000s, and unfortunately the current sad state of affairs will either continue or worsen till armaggeddon finally comes.

All this madness started in the ’90s. The ’80s was the last decent decade for society. The ’90s and ’00s have been shit and now that we’re in the ’10s, I only see things worsening. I am scared for myself that when I get out of college, all opportunities for jobs and a career will not exist thanks to this terrible economy that nobody is doing anything about(cough*Obama*cough).

Yes, true.

‘Our calendar, by common consent, began on January 1st, year 1′.

Not so sure about this. Who’s ‘common consent’? As I understand it, when the calendar we use was first developed the non-inclusion of the first year (i.e. the ‘Year Zero’) was an oversight that was not considered to be one at the time because the very concept of zero had not yet been discovered in Dark Age Europe. If it had been known about, the very first year would have been marked as Year Zero and our modern-day calendar would begin from it.

To answer your question, the common consent of virtually everyone who lives in the western hemisphere. While one can try to argue that it should have started with year zero, the fact remains that it doesn’t. The calendar starts with year one, and that’s just how it is.

By ‘common consent’, the starting point for this calendar (most people agree with this, by the way), was the birth of a historical (or perhaps mythical, doesn’t really matter) figure. That is, someone’s BIRTHDAY. All birthdays are marked from the time of someone’s actual birth (NOT their first birthday) and so therefore our calendar should have, when it was first developed, taken this into account. The fact that it didn’t was a serious mistake.

First, incorrect, otherwise we’d start the new year on december 25th.

Thirdly, (and this the point you’re really not getting) even if we were born on 1/1/01, his 2000th birthday would be on 1/1/2001, NOT 1/1/2000.

2010 years (and a few months, weeks and days) have PASSED since the supposed birth of Christ. Our system of counting years (and decades and centuries and millennia) has this as its starting point – NOT Jesus Christ’s FIRST birthday (i.e A.D. 1)!

This is where you’re messing up, math wise. Jesus (let’s assume he existed for the sake of the argument) was NOT born in year 0, because there was no year 0. He was born in year 1, and therefore his 1st birthday would have been in year 2.

Furthermore, assuming (again for the sake of argument) if he was born on 1/1/01, 2010 have NOT passed since that date, only 2009 years. 2010 years will not have passed until 1/1/2011. Once you understand that, you will see why I’m right about this.

Okay, I give up. I’ve tried, I really have. Believe whatever you like.

It’s not about what I believe; it’s about what makes sense mathematically. Your argument fails because your math fails (and very simple math it is, which is why I find your inability to grasp this mystifying). You might as well be arguing that 2 + 2 = 5 for all the sense you’re making.

So my question to you (as this seems to be your sticking point), if 1/1/0001 is not the first day of this calendar, what is?

A millennium is a collection of 1000 years. Our calendar, by common consent, begin on January 1st, year 1. Therefore, 100 hundred years hence brings us to January 1st, year 101, NOT January 1st, year 100. Your other points are irrelevant simply because January 1st, 2000, occurred only 1999 years after the first day of the calendar we now useThis is very simple.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? It’s just a math.

There are two things we agree upon. You DID mention ‘It was “Year 1″ right from the very first day.’ I shouldn’t have missed it, but then you make the mistake of stating that ‘just to make this real clear, the calendar starts at 1/1/01, not 1/1/00. This is why each millennium must start on an “01″ year.’

Well, this, as I have pointed out in my previous post, is wrong if only because there was no consistent (that is, universally accepted) calendar in the first century of the Christian Era. Many different systems co-existed, and the Gregorian was not one of them.

The millennium ‘MUST’ start on an ’01′ year? Simply saying so does not make it so. I don’t accept your line of reasoning (it has serious flaws), but maybe we should just agree to disagree on this.

1. The Gregorian Calendar didn’t exist at the commencement of the Christian Era, it being the dating system that was introduced to replace the Julian Calendrical system, which had a fatal flaw, so your mention of the Gregorian calendar is misleading. I don’t remember precisely which version of Pope Gregory it was (hence the name of the calendar) that introduced it. The ‘Gregorian calendar is a secular calendar’ you say, and yet it was introduced by, and named after, a Pope of Rome. None of the dating systems that are currently in use anywhere can be truthfully described as being ‘secular’; they are all based upon a leading religious figure’s birth, or revelation, or migration to Medina, or whatever.

2. ‘Jesus alleged place in all this is irrelevant’ you say. Not so, if only because his birth is used as the starting point for this system, which is why we are now in the 21st century (and not, for example, the 15th century), it being (approximately) 2,000 years since the birth of Christ.

3. You seem to think that just by repeating yourself, you can make something that is manifestly untrue, true. The first century did not begin on the first of January of 100 (or 101), but the second century did, and I mention this to point out that to argue that the first year started on the 1st of January of A.D. 1 makes as much sense as trying to argue that the period 100 (or 101) to 200 (or 201) was the first century. It is nonsensical.

4. The first century began with its very first year (i.e. the supposed birth of Christ), not the ‘Year One’ or A.D. 1. There is a difference, you know, and that is the reason I mentioned the manner in which people count the years of their existence. Besides (and this is also important) at this time most people within the Roman Empire considered the founding of Rome itself (753 B.C.) as the starting point. It was only much later, long after the passing of the first century, that Christians (from memory, during the 4th century) that the change was made to the system that has no ‘Year Zero’. The first twelve months of any person’s existence is from the day of their birth until their first birthday, at which point they are one year old, and the same goes for the very first year of the very first century; maybe I just didn’t explain it properly before.

Yes, you are right, it is just a matter of simple maths. I agree with that point, but nothing else you have said here. I do, however, hope I was ‘civil’ this time (that remark about a lack of intelligence was a mistake, for which I am sorry), for it is often hard to appear so in print when there is a disagreement between two people (well, it is for me anyway).

Jesus’ alleged place in all this is irrelevant; the Gregorian calendar is a secular calendar for all intents and purposes. It began with the year 1. You dismiss this as unimportant, but it is actually where your argument fails.

Consider: the first century AD began with the year 1, and ended with the year 100 (there are 100 years in a century, remember?) Therefore, the second century AD began in the year 101, the third century in the year 201, etc. Each new decade, century, and millennium in the Gregorian calendar ends at the 00, and the following one begins on the 01.

The first millennium ended AT THE END of the year 1000, not at the beginning, which is why that argument doesn’t work. The second millennium began on 1/1/1001, and continued UNTIL THE END of the year 2000. If, as you argue, it ended on 12/31/99, then that would not be 1000 years, but rather only 999. The last time I checked, a millennium has 1000 years.

What you also fail to consider is that you didn’t turn 1 until a full year after the day of your birth, even though you were in “year 1″ of your life. After your first birthday, you were then referred to as “1 Year old”, even though you were actually in the second year of your life. The calendar doesn’t work that way. It was “Year 1″ right from the very first day. If and when you turn 100, you at that point be in the 101st year of your life. In other words, you will be in your second century.

Another way to put it is this (just to use your own analogy): if Jesus (or whomever) was born on 1/1/01, his one hundredth birthday would fall on January 1st, in the year 101, not 100, as you seem to think. So when you say, “On the first of January of the year 2000, 2000 years had PASSED since the birth of that (mythical?) character known as Jesus of Nazareth”, you are in fact, mistaken. Only 1999 years had passed (2000-1=1999, just to make this real easy for you.) Again, just to make this real clear, the calendar starts at 1/1/01, not 1/1/00. This is why each millennium must start on an “01″ year.

So no matter how you slice it, your argument is mathematically incorrect, and therefore, invalid.

So really, it’s just a matter of simple math. Get it now?

So please, before you question my intelligence, please demonstrate a little of your own. If you can’t muster that, a little common civility never hurts either.

Our calendar has as its starting point the supposed birth of an obscure religious zealot known a Jesus Christ. There is debate as to whether or not he even existed, but that’s not an issue here; his day of birth is considered to be the starting point. NOT, mind you, his first birthday.

Everyone I have ever known of calculates his/her age from the day of their birth, and when their first birthday came around they turned one year of age, because one year has passed. When ten years go by, they turn ten. If someone makes it to the age of 100, then this means that 100 years have passed since they were born (not 99).

On the first of January of the year 2000, 2000 years had PASSED since the birth of that (mythical?) character known as Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, I know that there was no ‘Year Zero’, but there doesn’t need to be; it would be redundant in any case. On a person’s tenth birthday, ten years have elapsed since their day of birth. On their hundredth birthday, 100. On their 2000th birthday, 2000 years have elapsed (not 1,999 years).

It’s so simple (and obvious) that whenever I hear – or read – the lame, and poorly thought-out, whine that ‘no, it’s the 1st of January 2001 that marks the new century’, I have to seriously doubt that person’s intelligence.