Are you claiming that the gene is not recessive? Because you're wrong.
Note: I am not saying that an individual ginger should be discriminated against. But a high proportion of them is a warning sign that something is going genetically wrong with a community.
By your rules a community of mostly blue eyed people has something genetically wrong with them.
Funny how eugenics doesn't work whichever way you try to slice it isn't it ?
A gene being recessive or dominant and being expressed in a group of individuals is not immediately a sign of 'inbreeding'. By that standard we are all 'inbreeding', everybody will have a number of recessive genes expressed, even if that does not lead to them having a different phenotype.
Inbreeding refers to a population too small to have a viable sized gene pool, one of the traits is exposure of recessive traits.
You're confusing the cause and the effect. Not all recessive traits are exposed by inbreeding, the vast majority of them are regular recombination in a lively genepool.
> Are you claiming that the gene is not recessive?
Of course I'm not saying that. I know that the gene for red hair is recessive. And it's true that an entire community having mostly red hair has an increased probability of being inbred.
But think of it as a test that someone comes from a community that is inbred. Almost every positive (someone has red hair) will be a false positive (they most likely are not from a community that's inbred, although the chances are increased infintesimally). Your comment, however, seems to advocate pointing at someone and saying "They've got red hair, it's more likely they're an inbreed."
Now turn it around. Give everyone on HN a test for some rare condition (SRC). There are a few tests turn up positive, so you point at them and say "It's more likely they've got SRC." Yes, that's true, and completely unhelpful. It's almost certain to be a false positive.
On the other hand, you said:
Quoting>> And anybody with red hair
Quoting>> knows how true that is.
You said> Well, that's different.
The text from which you quoted is this:
> If everybody would be born exactly the same
> shade of medium brown as of tomorrow I'm sure
> we'd focus on hair colour next. And anybody
> with red hair knows how true that is.
So when you say "Well, that's different," your implication is that it's not OK to be prejudiced because of skin colour, but it is OK to be prejudiced against people with red hair. It's different, because having red hair makes it more likely that they are inbred.
That's how your comment reads. That's what your comment appears to say. It may not be what you meant, but it's still deeply offensive, even if you don't realise it.
Your comments about communities, etc, are correct, but when you insert them into a discussion about prejudice, the implications and import are entirely different. It's that juxtaposition that matters.
Note: I am not saying that an individual ginger should be discriminated against. But a high proportion of them is a warning sign that something is going genetically wrong with a community.