Philosophy Now Forum

I don't think so (I looked it up) so if not, does it deserve to be a continent? (composed of seven countries and over 40 million people - Australia has about 12 million people and was once classified a continent).

PhilX

Australia is a continent and Central America is not. Why don't you just look up the definition of a continent instead of posing such an inane question? It's got nothing to with countries but with regional landmasses. For example Antarctica is a continent but is not a country. Greenland is a bigger island country than Australia but because it is physiographically attached to North America it is not a continent. India is a sub-continent because it is a distinctly separate landmass which simply drifted into Asia.

Obvious Leo wrote:Australia is a continent and Central America is not. Why don't you just look up the definition of a continent instead of posing such an inane question? It's got nothing to with countries but with regional landmasses. For example Antarctica is a continent but is not a country. Greenland is a bigger island country than Australia but because it is physiographically attached to North America it is not a continent. India is a sub-continent because it is a distinctly separate landmass which simply drifted into Asia.

I did look up the definition and there are many. The etymology of continent says continuous landmass. There are those that say if Australia is a continent, then Greenland should be one too (also read that Australia is currently looked upon as a dwarf continent).

There is no official definition of a continent. Have heard on TV years ago that Australia was reclassified from a continent to a country. Being you live in Australia Leo, can you say what you think about Australia is without prejudice? Getting back to my original question, based on the etymology, I would say Central America is a continent and if anybody brings up the Panama Canal, that is an artificial, man-made structure.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Have heard on TV years ago that Australia was reclassified from a continent to a country.

Bullshit. These are two different and unrelated descriptive classifications. A country is a political entity and a continent is a geological one.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Have heard on TV years ago that Australia was reclassified from a continent to a country.

Bullshit. These are two different and unrelated descriptive classifications. A country is a political entity and a continent is a geological one.

Now look who's being inane. You've missed the point.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I don't think so (I looked it up) so if not, does it deserve to be a continent? (composed of seven countries and over 40 million people - Australia has about 12 million people and was once classified a continent).

PhilX

What do you think a continent is? Is the definition geological or geological or geopolitical?


"Australia" was never a continent. Australasia was a continent.
Once again you have launched yourself into a topic that you know nothing about.

If you want to take plate tectonics into account then South American is a continent separated from the North. There are also good politics reasons to make that definition.

"Continent" is not a natural category. It means whatever humans take it to mean.

Pluto was a planet now it ain't. Who cares?

Geologically, since N & S American are technically separate plates they both count. By this rubric Europe and Asia are part of the same continent.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Have heard on TV years ago that Australia was reclassified from a continent to a country.

Bullshit. These are two different and unrelated descriptive classifications. A country is a political entity and a continent is a geological one.

How do you account for Europe and Asia being separate? They are the same landmass, but politically separated since the Greeks defined the terms.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I don't think so (I looked it up) so if not, does it deserve to be a continent? (composed of seven countries and over 40 million people - Australia has about 12 million people and was once classified a continent).

PhilX

What do you think a continent is? Is the definition geological or geological or geopolitical?


"Australia" was never a continent. Australasia was a continent.
Once again you have launched yourself into a topic that you know nothing about.

If you want to take plate tectonics into account then South American is a continent separated from the North. There are also good politics reasons to make that definition.

"Continent" is not a natural category. It means whatever humans take it to mean.

Pluto was a planet now it ain't. Who cares?

Geologically, since N & S American are technically separate plates they both count. By this rubric Europe and Asia are part of the same continent.

As Hex would say, you're mainly parroting what I've said.

PhilX

Obvious Leo wrote:Australia is a continent and Central America is not. Why don't you just look up the definition of a continent instead of posing such an inane question? It's got nothing to with countries but with regional landmasses. For example Antarctica is a continent but is not a country. Greenland is a bigger island country than Australia but because it is physiographically attached to North America it is not a continent. India is a sub-continent because it is a distinctly separate landmass which simply drifted into Asia.

Greenland is ONLY 2 mill km2, Australia is nearer 8 km2. Get your head out of your arse and understand that the Mercator projection give a false impression.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I don't think so (I looked it up) so if not, does it deserve to be a continent? (composed of seven countries and over 40 million people - Australia has about 12 million people and was once classified a continent).

PhilX

What do you think a continent is? Is the definition geological or geological or geopolitical?


"Australia" was never a continent. Australasia was a continent.
Once again you have launched yourself into a topic that you know nothing about.

If you want to take plate tectonics into account then South American is a continent separated from the North. There are also good politics reasons to make that definition.

"Continent" is not a natural category. It means whatever humans take it to mean.

Pluto was a planet now it ain't. Who cares?

Geologically, since N & S American are technically separate plates they both count. By this rubric Europe and Asia are part of the same continent.

As Hex would say, you're mainly parroting what I've said.

PhilX

No he would correctly identify that you are a horse's arse.

Here's one example why;

I would say Central America is a continent and if anybody brings up the Panama Canal, that is an artificial, man-made structure.

Central American does not conform to ANY definition of continent. You are clueless, and can't ever understand other's objections.
Did you have problems reading at school?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No he would correctly identify that you are a horse's arse.

He already applied that description to you, jackass.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No he would correctly identify that you are a horse's arse.

He already applied that description to you, jackass.

PhilX

Central America.



Fuckwit!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No he would correctly identify that you are a horse's arse.

He already applied that description to you, jackass.

PhilX

Central America.



Fuckwit!

So what's the point of your cartoon, lamebrain?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
He already applied that description to you, jackass.

PhilX

Central America.



Fuckwit!

So what's the point of your cartoon, lamebrain?

PhilX

You are truly a dickhead if you don't know,

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are truly a dickhead if you don't know,

You must truly be a shithead as you're providing spam with your cartoon.

PhilX