I'm sure it doesn't seem like that to the citizens of Taiwan who are basically told to go fuck themselves by the WHO

I did not realize that the WHO's job is to get involved in arguments over borders.

I always thought that their job was to get involved in arguments over public health.

Public health is the problem with them ignoring data from Taiwan.

1. What part of that statement makes you think that they ignored data from Taiwan? It was quite obviously a dodge of a politically sensitive question.

2. Both Taiwan and China claim to be China, so that statement wasn't even factually wrong.

> 2. Both Taiwan and China claim to be China, so that statement wasn't even factually wrong.

Taiwan nowadays is kinda forced by China to claim to be China actually.

Nowadays? Yes. But it has been making that same claim for nigh-on 70 years, long before China has been strong-arming them into it.

Borders are considered to be rather important in this particular health crisis!

That's a strange way of framing the fact that the WHO is explicitly siding with China in denying the very existence of Taiwan. Especially considering that Taiwan had data that would have saved lives, had the World Health Organization acknowledged their existence.

The next time someone who has nothing to do with congressional politics refers to President Trump, are you going to get on their case for failing to acknowledge the existence of the impeachment issue? Will you accuse them of explicitly supporting one side of that conflict?

After all, it is crystal-clear to all right-thinking people that if the world were just, he would currently be in jail. Referring to him as a president is explicitly taking a political position on the subject...

This is where a person less concerned with the correct use of the terms designating logical fallacies might accuse you of a "false equivalence". Regardless, trying to reason by analogy on topics like this invites errors of oversimplification and generalization.

Staying on topic, you grossly misrepresented the situation by characterizing WHO's implicit endorsement of Taiwan's non-existance as a state as a matter of mere "argument over borders".

I feel that it is a gross representation to interpret the WHO's ''NEXT QUESTION PLEASE'' dodge to be an implicit endorsement of... A state of the world that doesn't exist?

Why do you think I feel that way? Why do you not feel that way about the example I outlined? Is it because one topic (Trump's criminality) is controversial in the Western world, while the other one (Taiwan's independence) is not?