Comment on This makes so much more sense
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days agoI’d appreciate if you could answer the question. Do you perhaps have another geologic feature to propose? If you want to use large landmasses, then islands don’t belong to any continents at all. If you don’t set a minimum size, then there are far too many continents to remember. So what is it?
Do you perhaps have another geologic feature to propose? If you want to use large landmasses, then islands don’t belong to any continents at all.
Isn’t proximity a good argument? This is exact kind of tomfoolery he’s talking about.
He called out your arbitrary bs and now you go on a dense stupid defense.
So islands belong to the nearest large landmass? I guess you could do that, but then where’s the threshold? Obviously, Africeurasia has to be a continent if you want there to be any continents, and America probably is too, but then is Australia a continent that includes NZ and some other islands, or is it part of Africeurasia? How about Greenland? Are the Diomede Islands really on two different continents? Indonesia would be too, if you count Australia as a continent.
I’ll give you that that’s geologically consistent while being culturally independent, but it’s pretty inconvenient.
VAK@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Australia is the minimum size. Isthmuses, oceans and seas are separators. Islands don’t belong to any continent.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
That’s a solid start, but what’s your threshold for an isthmus? Does Panama count, or is there only one American continent? Same question for the Sinai.
And if they don’t count, Australia’s inclusion seems a bit arbitrary, given the massive size difference between it and the next-largest landmass (the Americas are nearly 6x the size).
VAK@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Why? Coz it looks pretty. You can totally come up with your own axioms.
Panama and Sinai count as isthmuses for borders. Australia I like to count coz its 3x larger than greenland.