They're human beings, not mere animals

This is the logical fallacy known as “special pleading.” My assertion is true. The default assumption is nature. It’s totally fine if you want to present an argument that a particular behavior is nurture, but that ball is in your court.

if you see a cat barking like a dog, the logical assumption is that it was raised with dogs and not that it has barking genetics.

That’s logical … but notice, that cat is breaking the pattern - it’s an exception

Above, we were talking about patterns. And now you’re raising an exception.

Furthermore, when you find a cat barking you should not merely assert that it must be nurture. What you should do is start with the assumption that it’s nature, and then disprove that by, for example, finding out if the behavior is only exhibited by cats raised by dogs.

My position here is logical and has survived several challenges. I hope you can admit that.

We agree that Jews (indeed, all races) have certain behavioral tendencies. The default explanation is their relatedness to each other (genes/nature). If you believe otherwise that’s totally fine. But you need to present an argument (show that some of them are raised by dogs who bark, and that the behavior only manifests in those).

If you make another reply where, instead of presenting such an argument, you continue to claim that my position (that nature is the default explanation) is not true (and that therefore you are allowed to assert that the explanation is nurture without an accompanying argument) then I’ll have to assume you have no such argument