Harper-Collins prints atlas with no Israel.

[Paprika]

You're not exactly causing me any lost sleep.

One then wonders why you whine.

I was bored, and felt like responding.

I wouldn't want to relieve boredom by getting thrashed. But it takes all types to make a world.

[Paprika]

On the other hand, supposing that your subjective preference is objective fact may be delusional (or perhaps could be honestly mistaken). Or deceiving others into thinking that it is objective fact may be immoral.

I think you omitted some words here.

[One Bad Pig]

One then wonders why you whine.


I wouldn't want to relieve boredom by getting thrashed. But it takes all types to make a world.

[Joel]

I think you omitted some words here.

I don't think so. But I likely worded it poorly. I'll rephrase what I said:

It may be delusional to suppose that your subjective preference is objective fact.
(Although perhaps someone could be honestly mistaken.)

And:
It may be immoral to deceive others into thinking that your subjective preference is objective fact.



Is that more understandable?

[Paprika]

Is that more understandable?

No less pathetic.

People are free to draw maps or any other images according to their own subjective preferences. You could, say, draw Antarctica being right next to France if you wish, because you think that ideally they would be next to each other. That doesn't necessarily make you incoherent or delusional. It doesn't necessarily make the map useless or meaningless.

Comparing drawing Antarctica next to France with my example of China including Taiwan in its maps? You really are desperate, aren't you?

It may be delusional to suppose that your subjective preference is objective fact.
(Although perhaps someone could be honestly mistaken.)

And:
It may be immoral to deceive others into thinking that your subjective preference is objective fact.

Here you go again with your obsessions with your narrowly defined 'objective' purposes of maps.

But because lots of people rely on maps for objective information to do things like travel/navigate, it's probably prudent to clearly communicate what you have done when you publish a map intentionally showing your (or others') subjective preferences.

It is their own responsibility to confirm information sources. Given that there are so many of those 'objective' maps, it shouldn't be that hard for them to derive the information that they seek.

[Joel]

Comparing drawing Antarctica next to France with my example of China including Taiwan in its maps? You really are desperate, aren't you?

That wasn't a straw man. It was an argument in support of your position!

I'm saying that even Antarctica next to France does NOT necessarily imply incoherent, delusional, useless, or meaningless.
Therefore a fortiori, making slight adjustments to borders (or "China including Taiwan") is NOT necessarily incoherent, delusional, useless, or meaningless.
I'm agreeing with you.

Here you go again with your obsessions with your narrowly defined 'objective' purposes of maps.

I'm not saying "subjective bad, objective good." I'm just saying that there is a difference between the two, and that to confuse them is probably a mistake. If you think I'm wrong about that, please explain why.

It is their own responsibility to confirm information sources. Given that there are so many of those 'objective' maps, it shouldn't be that hard for them to derive the information that they seek.

I don't know how easy it is for people in a third world country to do so. And/or how easy it is if their government is actively engaging in suppression/propaganda.
Also how does one confirm the source? By checking that it's a reliable source like Harper Collins?

[Paprika]

That wasn't a straw man. It was an argument in support of your position!

I'm not saying "subjective bad, objective good." I'm just saying that there is a difference between the two, and that to confuse them is probably a mistake.

If you think I'm wrong about that, please explain why.

I'm not aware of the makers of the maps I speak of claiming that 'these maps we make depict "objective" actual areas of control'. You (and others in this thread) are more likely to confuse their intentions and thus claim that they are 'delusional', etc etc.

I don't know how easy it is for people in a third world country to do so. And/or how easy it is if their government is actively engaging in suppression/propaganda.

Also how does one confirm the source? By checking that it's a reliable source like Harper Collins?

You're claiming that there is a practical problem if people want to travel/navigate. Your burden of proof, not mine; I should only point out that if citizens are free to travel it is likely that they should have ready access to maps such as those of Wikipedia, the chief of all that is reliable.