- #36
Mk
- 2,043
- 4
Hey look its The Swerve! A rare sighting!
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.Ophiolite said: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.
Ophiolite said: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.
Silverbackman said: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!
The http://www.swervepictures.com/swerve.htm" is all around youMk said:Hey look its The Swerve! A rare sighting!
Ophiolite said: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.
Ophiolite said: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.
Doesn't anything about it not having to be conectd to a contient.It doesn't say it has to have unique cutral sepertion.Noun
continent (plural: continents)
A large contiguous landmass that is at least partially surrounded by water. Americans consider that the Earth has seven:
Mk said:Europa is a satellite, not a continent silly.
The impire of hell.etc impire's were space impires!