▲ 632 ▼ Which Countries Are In The World Health Organization (thelemmy.club) submitted 7 months ago by ooli3@sopuli.xyz to c/map_enthusiasts@sopuli.xyz 75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Mac@mander.xyz 13 points 7 months ago (11 children) Yet it isn't a country. lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [+] blitzen@lemmy.ca -12 points 7 months ago (10 children) Puerto Rico isn’t a country, yet it is green on this map. Greenland isn’t a country, yet it is shaded a color. The purpose of a map is to convey geographic information. What you seem to be looking for is a dictionary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 6 points 7 months ago (5 children) Those are really bad examples for comparison. lmao Also wow, rude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children) PR is a great example. Why is it shaded green on this map? While we’re on the subject of literal readings of this map; Argentina is in WHO, and is shaded a color not on the legend. Do you have a problem with this part? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 point 7 months ago (3 children) Why is Greenland shaded green? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (2 children) I’d accept Demark being in WHO. Puerto Rico? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples. This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows. PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 7 months ago (3 children) Greenland is a country. It's a country that's part of Denmark. Countries can in fact be part of other countries. It's allowed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca -2 points 7 months ago (2 children) It’s not a country. Its government is the government of Denmark. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child) Firstly no it isn't, they have an independent prime minister, and secondly that isn't the definition of a country anyway. It's an independent self-governing region which Denmark provides for. It's like 4 seconds to Google this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* Then why isn’t it listed in the official list of participating countries? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] blitzen@lemmy.ca -12 points 7 months ago (10 children) Puerto Rico isn’t a country, yet it is green on this map. Greenland isn’t a country, yet it is shaded a color. The purpose of a map is to convey geographic information. What you seem to be looking for is a dictionary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 6 points 7 months ago (5 children) Those are really bad examples for comparison. lmao Also wow, rude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children) PR is a great example. Why is it shaded green on this map? While we’re on the subject of literal readings of this map; Argentina is in WHO, and is shaded a color not on the legend. Do you have a problem with this part? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 point 7 months ago (3 children) Why is Greenland shaded green? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (2 children) I’d accept Demark being in WHO. Puerto Rico? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples. This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows. PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 7 months ago (3 children) Greenland is a country. It's a country that's part of Denmark. Countries can in fact be part of other countries. It's allowed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca -2 points 7 months ago (2 children) It’s not a country. Its government is the government of Denmark. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child) Firstly no it isn't, they have an independent prime minister, and secondly that isn't the definition of a country anyway. It's an independent self-governing region which Denmark provides for. It's like 4 seconds to Google this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* Then why isn’t it listed in the official list of participating countries? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mac@mander.xyz 6 points 7 months ago (5 children) Those are really bad examples for comparison. lmao Also wow, rude. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children) PR is a great example. Why is it shaded green on this map? While we’re on the subject of literal readings of this map; Argentina is in WHO, and is shaded a color not on the legend. Do you have a problem with this part? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 point 7 months ago (3 children) Why is Greenland shaded green? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (2 children) I’d accept Demark being in WHO. Puerto Rico? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples. This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows. PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children) PR is a great example. Why is it shaded green on this map? While we’re on the subject of literal readings of this map; Argentina is in WHO, and is shaded a color not on the legend. Do you have a problem with this part? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 point 7 months ago (3 children) Why is Greenland shaded green? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (2 children) I’d accept Demark being in WHO. Puerto Rico? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples. This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows. PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mac@mander.xyz 1 point 7 months ago (3 children) Why is Greenland shaded green? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (2 children) I’d accept Demark being in WHO. Puerto Rico? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples. This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows. PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 point 7 months ago (2 children) I’d accept Demark being in WHO. Puerto Rico? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples. This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows. PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 7 months ago (1 child) Yes, please do accept your own conflicting examples. This was never a serious debate. I was meming about your wording (hence my "lol") and you got offended. There's much more nuance here, as everyone knows. PR is still an unincorporated territory in comparison to California, and was invited to join on their own. But you can continue this debate with someone else, if you want, that was never my intent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) If anyone is offended, it’s the person who took this conversation as “rude.” Point is, unincorporated territory, country, state, autonomous territory, etc are just legal definitions of regions. And the purpose of the map is to show participating regions. Depending too much on the literal definition of country misses the point of the map (unless the point is the shit on the US, something I would fully agree we are deserving of.) I would certainly understand a modified green/red stripe color to indicate the California participates but is part of a country that doesn’t. That feels honest and in the spirit of the map, dismissing California wholly doesn’t. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 7 months ago (3 children) Greenland is a country. It's a country that's part of Denmark. Countries can in fact be part of other countries. It's allowed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca -2 points 7 months ago (2 children) It’s not a country. Its government is the government of Denmark. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child) Firstly no it isn't, they have an independent prime minister, and secondly that isn't the definition of a country anyway. It's an independent self-governing region which Denmark provides for. It's like 4 seconds to Google this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* Then why isn’t it listed in the official list of participating countries? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca -2 points 7 months ago (2 children) It’s not a country. Its government is the government of Denmark. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child) Firstly no it isn't, they have an independent prime minister, and secondly that isn't the definition of a country anyway. It's an independent self-governing region which Denmark provides for. It's like 4 seconds to Google this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* Then why isn’t it listed in the official list of participating countries? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child) Firstly no it isn't, they have an independent prime minister, and secondly that isn't the definition of a country anyway. It's an independent self-governing region which Denmark provides for. It's like 4 seconds to Google this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* Then why isn’t it listed in the official list of participating countries? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* Then why isn’t it listed in the official list of participating countries? permalink fedilink source parent
