Should Europe Be Considered A Seperate Continent?

[Mk]

Hey look its The Swerve! A rare sighting!

 

[Mk]

Swerve, if I were a sensitive sort who objected to cheap debating tricks, then I would be really pissed off by your deliberate linkage of two wholly independent notions: one, Europe is a separate continent; two, Europeans are superior. Since I am not sensitive, and generally laugh at such a transparent technique, I'll drop the topic.

Jeez man, if you want any help in this discussion you would need to be more accepting. I think really, we're all right. I found a box of Altoids on a table and put it in my pocket. It was empty, but I still found it interesting.

 

[Silverbackman]

Silverbackman:
the comparison with the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World is not irrelevant, since there were considerably more than Seven Wonders. It just so happens that the phrase was used historically and caught on.
The definition of continent that holds Europe to be one falls into this same kind of category.

I repeat, classification systems are artificial. There is no right or wrong way. I am happy to accept your definition as one of several options that might be considered. It is regretable you are not prepared to extend the same consideration. I see nothing to be gained by further discussion.

Swerve, if I were a sensitive sort who objected to cheap debating tricks, then I would be really pissed off by your deliberate linkage of two wholly independent notions: one, Europe is a separate continent; two, Europeans are superior. Since I am not sensitive, and generally laugh at such a transparent technique, I'll drop the topic.

No, you are missing my point.

Although I am more for absolute classification system, I did open the idea for a different definition. However I asked you afterwards whether East Asia, Arabia, and India can have the same rights to be called continents as well. In other words I was seeing whether you were being hypocritical here (if you really think continents have different meaning).

However in my opinion classifications need to be more absolute. Otherwise things will get confusing. For example there should be one universal standard for classifying animals: almost entirely through genetic comparison and less on physical description (which is actually occurring in some sectors of the scientific community). Similarly with continents the classification should be what it originally meant (a large land mass that can only be connected to another through a land bridge).

A chimpanzee is not a monkey. There is no way around it. It is popularly and historically though chimps are monkeys when in fact they are no closer to monkeys than we are. This is why an absolute classification is important. I mean there is a big difference between a chimp and a monkey!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

No, you are missing my point.

Although I am more for absolute classification system, I did open the idea for a different definition. However I asked you afterwards whether East Asia, Arabia, and India can have the same rights to be called continents as well. In other words I was seeing whether you were being hypocritical here (if you really think continents have different meaning).

However in my opinion classifications need to be more absolute. Otherwise things will get confusing. For example there should be one universal standard for classifying animals: almost entirely through genetic comparison and less on physical description (which is actually occurring in some sectors of the scientific community). Similarly with continents the classification should be what it originally meant (a large land mass that can only be connected to another through a land bridge).

A chimpanzee is not a monkey. There is no way around it. It is popularly and historically though chimps are monkeys when in fact they are no closer to monkeys than we are. This is why an absolute classification is important. I mean there is a big difference between a chimp and a monkey!

To stress this even more, I bring up the change in Primate taxonomy from the Prosimian/Anthropoid division to the Strepsirrhine/Haplorrhine division - the latter is phylogenetically informative and based on shared derived traits (synapomorphies) the former is based on uninformative, primitive traits (sympleisiomorphies). Another example is the old primate taxonomy in which orangutans, gorillas, and chimps were grouped in one category, humans in another. This taxonomy isn't helpful (results in a paraphyletic group) as humans, chimps, and gorillas are more related to each other than any is to orangutans. My point is, classification systems are constantly being re-examined and redefined when found wanting (as all paradigms are); why shouldn't this one be?

Hey look its The Swerve! A rare sighting!

The http://www.swervepictures.com/swerve.htm" is all around you

 

[0TheSwerve0]

I repeat, classification systems are artificial. There is no right or wrong way. I am happy to accept your definition as one of several options that might be considered. It is regretable you are not prepared to extend the same consideration. I see nothing to be gained by further discussion.

What is the point of having several different definitions and classification systems for this? Seems like a scientific term, but it's use is guided by cultural conceptions. Granted, science is a part of culture, but at least the defintions are applied consistently when constructed. Like I said, why not use a non-scientific counterpart for continent?
Like http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=region" :
1. A large, usually continuous segment of a surface or space; area.
2. A large, indefinite portion of the Earth's surface.
3. A specified district or territory.
4. An area of interest or activity; a sphere.
5. Ecology. A part of the Earth characterized by distinctive animal or plant life.
6. An area of the body having natural or arbitrarily assigned boundaries: the abdominal region.

Even the etymology is appropriate - Middle English, from Old French, from Latin regi, regin-, from regere, to rule. See reg- in Indo-European Roots.
This connotes culture. Continent is a quantitative rather than qualitative term and is thus unambiguous.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Ok, I think I'll have to concede that most of the posters are correct - continent isn't a scientific definition. I thought there was only one correct defintion, and that it varied in use from culture to culture. The base defintion is specific - a large, continuous landmass - which means we have Eurasia rather than Europe and Asia. But, it is commonly used however locals want to, and words mean only what people them to (however I hope to be long dead before "conversate" is accepted as a true word!). Gender is also defined differently, depending on culture; but sex remains the same everywhere (of course that too can be said to straddle, no pun intended, the line between the imagined and the real). I guess it's more of an abstract concept than a term with precise meanings and strict limits.

However, I do think continent should be uniform in meaning and application, but I guess it isn't important enough for that to happen. Sounds more correct for it to be a sub-continent to me.

 

[Silverbackman]

I'm okay with multiple definitions. I'm just curious to see whether the posters who claim continent means many definitions will also agree that the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia can meet this criteria as well (if Europe is considered a separate continent).

 

[Ophiolite]

The Middle East is too much ... in the middle.
South Asia - I assume you mean the Indian sub-continent. I am happy having it be a sub-continent.
East Asia? Tell me what coherence justifies it being a continent. Where are the dividing lines? Not logical, in my opinion.

 

[scott1]

Why is Austrilla a considerd it's on continent?It seems more like a island then a contienet to me.

 

[Silverbackman]

The Middle East is too much ... in the middle.
South Asia - I assume you mean the Indian sub-continent. I am happy having it be a sub-continent.
East Asia? Tell me what coherence justifies it being a continent. Where are the dividing lines? Not logical, in my opinion.

How is Europe anymore of a continent than East Asia? It has a totally different culture, ect. Didn't you say that was why Europe needed to be classified differently? Pretty obvious contradiction here.

 

[scott1]

It's a Continent!
Look at the deftion and it's the atynom
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/continent#Antonyms
Europe fits the deftion:

Noun
continent (plural: continents)

A large contiguous landmass that is at least partially surrounded by water. Americans consider that the Earth has seven:

Doesn't anything about it not having to be conectd to a contient.It doesn't say it has to have unique cutral sepertion.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incontinent

 

[Mk]

This thread is getting old. Hurry up and decide that we are all right, because WE ARE! As the context changes, the idea of a continent changes.

 

[Romanus]

I picked "no", but I don't think it should be considered a subcontinent. Simply put, Europe was last a separate continent in the Paleozoic, and it certainly is *much* larger than India or Arabia.

 

[J77]

Has anyone asked for England to have supreme continent status?



From my point of view...

I think of us living on the edge of the continent, ie. I know it stops somewhere outside Ireland and the Channel/North Sea are just 'flooded' parts of the continental mass - I don't know where it stops in the other direction tho'

I guess it stops in the South where it collides with the Indian one in the Himilaya and in the East where the bit between Russia and Alaska is...

When I'm drinking my coffee by the canal, I feel the most continental

 

[Mk]

Europa is a satellite, not a continent silly.

 

[scott1]

Europa is a satellite, not a continent silly.

Of cource Eurpopeans don't have there own continent they have a moon. So the Roman, greek, british, french etc impire's were space impires! *looks at a small moon next Eurpa. Hey that's the no moon it's a space station...

 

[Mk]

etc impire's were space impires!

The impire of hell.

 

[jamiet]

New horizons

i rather feel the real point is being missed here. Should Europe be a separate continent?!more like, should the UK be a separate continent. While browsing on a map, i just noticed australia is classed as a continent, even though it's pretty small. I'm sure I am not alone in being puzzled. if a rule applies to one, it should apply to all.