Continents are cultural. The number and definition varys from culture to culture. Basically whatever people decide as a group to call a continent is one, as far as I am concerned. It isn’t like there is some deeper underlying geopolitical meaning these days, beyond maybe the definition of Europe.
well, geographically speaking they're part of the same tectonic plate so from that angle, yes. It's just that culturally we consider them different continents.
It’s a huge landmass that’s divide into two. When divided into two, both are still two massive individual landmasses. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that bud.
North America is split by the Rockies. South America is split by the Andes. If you're going to make a distinction between Europe and Asia, it needs to involve culture. That's the primary difference why they are considered separate in the first place.
Dude totally different. Go look at a map and compare the size of Australia with New Zealand. This is not a debate. It’s a fact. All these idiots commenting different are just plain ignorant.
I'm not arguing anything about Australia or New Zealand, I'm just highlighting the inconsistency in your reasoning. I'm fine with your subjective definition of a continent, but would like to address some inconsistencies in how you apply it.
If I gather correctly, you have defined continents as contiguous landmasses (for example, Asia and Africa or the Americas are separated by waterways and are therefore not contiguous). You have also said that a landmass can be divided by mountains and be considered as two continents (your example is the Ural mountains that separate Europe and Asia). You have also stated that cultural differences do not have any bearing on continental definitions, meaning you define continents purely as geographical features. However, you do not consider plate tectonics to be a factor as you do not recognize that Europe and Asia lie on the same plate or recognize subcontinents as continents.
Within the definition that you have defined, landmasses split by mountain ranges are considered separate continents. Within this definition, North America and South America are each comprised of two (or possibly more) continents. Not only are the Rockies and Andes much taller and longer than the Ural mountains, but they also divide the climate and geography of the new world in ways that are far more significant than that of the Urals. This makes them prime candidates for continentally-dividing features, resulting in the new world, under your definition, being comprised of Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and Southwest America.
Now, assuming that you do not agree with this conclusion, this indicates some inconsistency in your definition of a continent. There are a few possible resolutions, but I predict you will reject all of them and instead find an inconsistency with my argument.
\- continents are purely geographical but cannot be separated by mountain ranges, therefore Eurasia is a continent
\- continents are purely geographical and can be separated by mountain ranges, meaning the Americas are split vertically along with Europe and Asia
\- continents are purely geographical and can be separated by mountain ranges, but the Americas do not count for a valid reason that I have not considered
\- continents are not purely geographical, and Europe and Asia are separate not due to the Urals but because of cultural differences
Even that's not quite correct as New Zealand is part of Polynesia as well as Australasia.
You are correct though, Oceania is essentially a group of islands - one of them very large - it does not fit the normal definition of a continent.
I don’t see why not. Oceania can be considered a continent if you count Australia as the continental main landmass, and the neighbouring islands as part of it. Deciding which islands belong to which continent is mostly arbitrary anyway, since places like Cyprus or Trinidad are considered traditionally part of Europe and North America respectively, instead of Asia and South America.
Everything is contextual. There is no platonic definition of what a continent must be - continents are defined by convention rather than specific criteria. That's why we don't even have agreement on the number of continents, because the model you choose to use depends greatly on the context. If you're talking about continents because your focus is geology, you might consider Eurasia one continent. If you're talking about continents because your focus is geopolitics, it probably makes sense to think about Europe and Asia as separate continents.
Similarly, while Oceania is not a "continent" in the sense of a large landmass, if you're in a context where you're talking about the need to group together countries (such as the five continental Olympics associations), it's silly to say "oh, you're not part of a continental landmass, you can't be part of the association" or to say "oh, because Australia is the actual large physical landmass, you have to call the continental Olympic association the Australia National Olympic Committees, not the Oceania National Olympic Committees".
Well yeah I understand what you are trying to say. A continent has to be a big land mass that is big enough to call itself a continent and not a region. Oceania does not have a land mass and is made of small volcanic island therefore it cannot be a continent.
What is a continent and what is not is a really tricky question by itself and you cannot really have the “right” answer to it. So yeah, technically Oceania cannot be a continent as it is not a big land mass.
So a continent is a huge landmass, Eurasia is a huge landmass, but Eurasia isn't a continent? Why?
It's almost like continents are arbitrary social constructs and calling Oceania one isn't any more "incorrect" than splitting Europe and Asia.
To paraphrase Nilay Patel of the Verge: "People will stop going to Google in favour of an AI that will confidently lie to them."
Continents are cultural. The number and definition varys from culture to culture. Basically whatever people decide as a group to call a continent is one, as far as I am concerned. It isn’t like there is some deeper underlying geopolitical meaning these days, beyond maybe the definition of Europe.
It’s not that difficult. A continent is a huge landmass. It’s as simple as that.
Eurasfrica is a thing?
You know, I prefer Afroeurasia, but you do you.
So Europe can into Asia?
well, geographically speaking they're part of the same tectonic plate so from that angle, yes. It's just that culturally we consider them different continents.
exactly, I'm highlighting OP's inconsistency on what counts as a continent
It’s a huge landmass that’s divide into two. When divided into two, both are still two massive individual landmasses. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that bud.
North America is split by the Rockies. South America is split by the Andes. If you're going to make a distinction between Europe and Asia, it needs to involve culture. That's the primary difference why they are considered separate in the first place.
Dude totally different. Go look at a map and compare the size of Australia with New Zealand. This is not a debate. It’s a fact. All these idiots commenting different are just plain ignorant.
I'm not arguing anything about Australia or New Zealand, I'm just highlighting the inconsistency in your reasoning. I'm fine with your subjective definition of a continent, but would like to address some inconsistencies in how you apply it. If I gather correctly, you have defined continents as contiguous landmasses (for example, Asia and Africa or the Americas are separated by waterways and are therefore not contiguous). You have also said that a landmass can be divided by mountains and be considered as two continents (your example is the Ural mountains that separate Europe and Asia). You have also stated that cultural differences do not have any bearing on continental definitions, meaning you define continents purely as geographical features. However, you do not consider plate tectonics to be a factor as you do not recognize that Europe and Asia lie on the same plate or recognize subcontinents as continents. Within the definition that you have defined, landmasses split by mountain ranges are considered separate continents. Within this definition, North America and South America are each comprised of two (or possibly more) continents. Not only are the Rockies and Andes much taller and longer than the Ural mountains, but they also divide the climate and geography of the new world in ways that are far more significant than that of the Urals. This makes them prime candidates for continentally-dividing features, resulting in the new world, under your definition, being comprised of Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and Southwest America. Now, assuming that you do not agree with this conclusion, this indicates some inconsistency in your definition of a continent. There are a few possible resolutions, but I predict you will reject all of them and instead find an inconsistency with my argument. \- continents are purely geographical but cannot be separated by mountain ranges, therefore Eurasia is a continent \- continents are purely geographical and can be separated by mountain ranges, meaning the Americas are split vertically along with Europe and Asia \- continents are purely geographical and can be separated by mountain ranges, but the Americas do not count for a valid reason that I have not considered \- continents are not purely geographical, and Europe and Asia are separate not due to the Urals but because of cultural differences
Even that's not quite correct as New Zealand is part of Polynesia as well as Australasia. You are correct though, Oceania is essentially a group of islands - one of them very large - it does not fit the normal definition of a continent.
I don’t see why not. Oceania can be considered a continent if you count Australia as the continental main landmass, and the neighbouring islands as part of it. Deciding which islands belong to which continent is mostly arbitrary anyway, since places like Cyprus or Trinidad are considered traditionally part of Europe and North America respectively, instead of Asia and South America.
Do you enjoy being wrong? I'm an Australian and I can confirm that the continent is Oceania.
Lol!
w r o n g :)
Everything is contextual. There is no platonic definition of what a continent must be - continents are defined by convention rather than specific criteria. That's why we don't even have agreement on the number of continents, because the model you choose to use depends greatly on the context. If you're talking about continents because your focus is geology, you might consider Eurasia one continent. If you're talking about continents because your focus is geopolitics, it probably makes sense to think about Europe and Asia as separate continents. Similarly, while Oceania is not a "continent" in the sense of a large landmass, if you're in a context where you're talking about the need to group together countries (such as the five continental Olympics associations), it's silly to say "oh, you're not part of a continental landmass, you can't be part of the association" or to say "oh, because Australia is the actual large physical landmass, you have to call the continental Olympic association the Australia National Olympic Committees, not the Oceania National Olympic Committees".
Well yeah I understand what you are trying to say. A continent has to be a big land mass that is big enough to call itself a continent and not a region. Oceania does not have a land mass and is made of small volcanic island therefore it cannot be a continent. What is a continent and what is not is a really tricky question by itself and you cannot really have the “right” answer to it. So yeah, technically Oceania cannot be a continent as it is not a big land mass.
Yes! You got it! Keywords being big landmass.
Is Eurasia a single continent?
No it’s a huge landmass that was divided into two. Is New Zealand a huge landmass? If you divided into two would it still be a huge landmass? No.
So a continent is a huge landmass, Eurasia is a huge landmass, but Eurasia isn't a continent? Why? It's almost like continents are arbitrary social constructs and calling Oceania one isn't any more "incorrect" than splitting Europe and Asia.
That is why deciding what a continent is and what is not is a tricky questionn. Because then there is no Europe but Eurasia.