> Jews for example more likely to have Tay Sachs disease.
Sure but it's not because they practice Judaism. And since one can convert to judaism, I've never heard about someone who can convert his genes to "jew genes".
Sure but it isn't necessary because their skin are dark, when you can find people from Sri Lanka or India who have a skin blacker than African people yet they don't have this disease prevalence.
See what you are doing here? you are mixing up genetics which can be used to establish statistical facts about gene expressions, and semantics AKA social construct. And this sort of sophism can easily be exploited to make broad generalizations about the behavior of arbitrary racial groups you've established under pretense of science. That's why the notion of race for humans is completely absurd.
What race are people living in Madagascar? most of them aren't negro looking, what race the Yemeni? the afghans? they don't look like Arabs...
> Judaism is not a race, being black means more than just a different skin color, you're intentionally trying to derail the discussion.
no I'm not. What does being black means then? and why bring "jews" into a discussion with race? If we're going to talk about race scientifically using these words, well you'd better have solid arguments as to why you use "jews" and "black" as race discriminant.
I'd also like to talk about the fact that most European jews are convert from the medieval era and have very little to do with the "Semites" who lived in what is now Israel 2000 years ago. So what race are you talking about?
>no I'm not. What does being black means then? and why bring "jews" into a discussion with race?
Because Jews have different risks of falling ill to many diseases than people of other races. You are still trying to conflate race with religion which makes it clear that you're here to derail the discussion.
> Because Jews have different risks of falling ill to many diseases than people of other races. You are still trying to conflate race with religion which makes it clear that you're here to derail the discussion.
quoting myself:
> I'd also like to talk about the fact that most European jews are convert from the medieval era and have very little to do with the "Semites" who lived in what is now Israel 2000 years ago. So what race are you talking about?
You didn't answer about "blacks", what are blacks?
Sure but it's not because they practice Judaism. And since one can convert to judaism, I've never heard about someone who can convert his genes to "jew genes".
> Sickle cell disease affects blacks disproportionately.
Sure but it isn't necessary because their skin are dark, when you can find people from Sri Lanka or India who have a skin blacker than African people yet they don't have this disease prevalence.
See what you are doing here? you are mixing up genetics which can be used to establish statistical facts about gene expressions, and semantics AKA social construct. And this sort of sophism can easily be exploited to make broad generalizations about the behavior of arbitrary racial groups you've established under pretense of science. That's why the notion of race for humans is completely absurd.
What race are people living in Madagascar? most of them aren't negro looking, what race the Yemeni? the afghans? they don't look like Arabs...