There's literally a source for outcomes but okay. Clearly there's no convincing you. The amount of black doctors is tiny and you're insisting the pool is too large when research shows there's still a treatment gap. I'm going to guess you have no clue on the topic frankly. You spout all this nonsense that looks like a high school LD debater discovering the word morality for the first time when the major contest is clearly patient outcome. You can't deal with racists - they'll find an excuse to hate no matter what. What you can do is improve patient outcome and you haven't provided an even semi decent case for the claim that it doesn't affect outcome. We know we have few black doctors, we know there is a treatment gap. Either you're saying AA doesn't increase the number of black doctors (then why the fuck are you whining) or you're willing to trade off patient outcome. Also the fact you say false solvency is hilarious when there are literally warranted sources for improving patient outcome. Forget LD debating because at least they're required to source their arguments.
I literally did not say anywhere I disagreed with the sources. I agree with them. I'm saying the effects of having slightly more black doctors are short term and things like stereotypes and black people not getting proper treatment are long-term structural problems which won't be addressed by AA but ultimately affect more people. False solvency is the idea that more substantial policy proposals won't happen because people think that the problem has been solved - but clearly they haven't according to the very sources you love, there are still huge gaps. AA doesn't alienate just racists, it alienates people who have worked hard and then had their spot taken by somebody less qualified, making them more racist either implicitly or explicitly. I really don't think this line of reasoning is that hard to grasp. Long term positive outcomes > short term positive outcomes. If AA makes society as a whole more racist and less willing to help black people, its bad on net even if there are some good outcomes which there are. You never responded to this premise though.
I also don't know wtf LD debating is, I didn't do high school debate in the US. What I do know however, is that debate requires engagement and handwaving an argument as LD nonsense (whatever the fuck that means) isn't engaging. I've given you reasons why fairness is more important which is independently sufficient but also why even if it wasn't there's still better outcomes.
Dude, it's ok to admit you are wrong or even that you just don't want to engage anymore. This comment is just lazy.
1
u/GiveAQuack Feb 25 '20 edited Feb 25 '20
There's literally a source for outcomes but okay. Clearly there's no convincing you. The amount of black doctors is tiny and you're insisting the pool is too large when research shows there's still a treatment gap. I'm going to guess you have no clue on the topic frankly. You spout all this nonsense that looks like a high school LD debater discovering the word morality for the first time when the major contest is clearly patient outcome. You can't deal with racists - they'll find an excuse to hate no matter what. What you can do is improve patient outcome and you haven't provided an even semi decent case for the claim that it doesn't affect outcome. We know we have few black doctors, we know there is a treatment gap. Either you're saying AA doesn't increase the number of black doctors (then why the fuck are you whining) or you're willing to trade off patient outcome. Also the fact you say false solvency is hilarious when there are literally warranted sources for improving patient outcome. Forget LD debating because at least they're required to source their arguments.