# "There's a Wire Above Manhattan That You've Probably Never Noticed" - Fascinating **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 8, 2017, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667 "2017-03-08T02:26:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Shinna\_Minna\_Ma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f08c70/32.png) [@Shinna\_Minna\_Ma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shinna_Minna_Ma)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667/121 "2017-03-15T15:37:30Z")
> [@LiliesOfTheField](#): > > I saw on a movie where the two types of dishes were mixed up and the mother burst into tears and ran outside and rubbed dirt on her dishes. There is a concept of kashering a knife by burying it, or plunging it into the ground 10 times. This is discouraged unless one only has the one knife. I also believe the knife has to be one piece. I don’t have time now to look up a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667/122 "2017-03-17T10:07:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To the contrary, it’s perfectly logical. You’re just fixated myopically on the wrong postulates. > > A person who eats at a kosher supervised restaurant and then later discovers a slovenly cook had mixed meat and dairy utensils has committed no wrong. > > A person who says, “I am going to create my own set of rules to avoid transgressing G-d’s commandments,” is deliberately disassociating himself from the observant Jewish community. He is, in effect, creating his own parochial system instead of adopting the community system. It’s beyond cavil that there is no risk of mixing meat and dairy if you have a slice of cheese on a chicken sandwich. But there are risks beyond the literal transgression of the mandate to not boil the flesh of the kid in the milk of the mother. Uneducated persons may see you eating cheese on meat and not realize the meat is chicken, and conclude that cheese on meat is not a problem. > > The rabbis whose commentary created the Mishnah and the Gemara adopted these rules as methods to avoid not only violating the mitzvah, but any confusion about conduct that might violate the mitzvah. Their rules create a habit that avoids conduct that might stray close. If you eat beef and cheese together because you’re confident that in the United States today there’s zero chance of the two animals that provided that food being related, what will your kids do? And their kids? Will your great-grandchildren, when visiting an isolated farm somewhere, remember to avoid mixing meat and dairy there? Or will your rejection of that rule have started its own tradition of “Who cares?” > > To you it’s “fanwanking,” because at the heart of the matter you don’t accept the idea that there is a G-d who made such a covenant with a tribe of people. That’s fine – but there can be no genuine doubt that the Jews believed that they were bound by such a covenant, and they crafted laws to live by it as best they understood the requirements of it. This is probably one of the greatest examples of someone demonstrating why they are wrong while arguing they are right that I have ever seen. It’s like someone speaking at length in fluent French about how they can’t speak French. Not only that but the flaw in your argument is facile: you say the person in the first paragraph has done nothing wrong; but they have taken a risk that something wrong might occur that they didn’t have to take. And the next two paragraphs are about how they can’t possibly do something, because it involves the teeniest risk that something may go wrong. It’s utter fanwankery from start to finish. And the unconvincing rationalisation that this sort of sophistry involves is a demonstration that it is utter tosh to say “they crafted laws to live by it as best they understood the requirements of it”. They evolved a practice which ignored certain risks and permitted certain others, based on nothing more than tradition and pragmatism. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2017, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667/123 "2017-03-17T11:23:38Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > This is probably one of the greatest examples of someone demonstrating why they are wrong while arguing they are right that I have ever seen. It’s like someone speaking at length in fluent French about how they can’t speak French. No. It’s nothing like that. And I’m not wrong. And a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied. > [@](#): > > Not only that but the flaw in your argument is facile: you say the person in the first paragraph has done nothing wrong; but they have taken a risk that something wrong might occur that they didn’t have to take. And the next two paragraphs are about how they can’t possibly do something, because it involves the teeniest risk that something may go wrong. It’s utter fanwankery from start to finish. If you were to learn that an accountant insists that the “cost” of an asset refers to the amount spent in cash or cash equivalent used to obtain an item, whether that purchase happened last year or forty years ago, and therefore an asset amount does not reflect the amount of money a company would receive if it were to sell the asset at today’s market value, would you perhaps point out the inconsistency of showing the current value of a company’s long-term assets at a ridiculously low value merely because they were purchased forty years ago? Or would you acknowledge that as along as the practice is well-understood as a generally-accepted one, your views on the inconsistency are uselessly unconvincing to the community of accountants? > [@](#): > > And the unconvincing rationalisation that this sort of sophistry involves is a demonstration that it is utter tosh to say “they crafted laws to live by it as best they understood the requirements of it”. They evolved a practice which ignored certain risks and permitted certain others, based on nothing more than tradition and pragmatism. Well, yes – if “tradition” means, inter alia, living by it as best they understood the requirements of it. And it does. You say “pragmatism,” plays a pivotal role, but it’s incredibly difficult to be an observant Jew. Your words might have more bite directed at Reform Judaism; I suppose pragmatism can be said to weigh more strongly in that tradition than it does in the Orthodox tradition. But I repeat my earlier theory: your evaluation of “fanwankery,” arises from your basic certainty that there is no such thing as a G-d that gave Moses a set of laws to which the Jewish people consented to be bound. If you believed that event to be true, your evaluation would be quite different. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667/124 "2017-03-22T09:52:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. It’s nothing like that. And I’m not wrong. > > And a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied. I know you think so but the need for expansion on my assertion is only necessary because you are so wrapped up in your infinitely detailed study of trees you can’t see that you are standing in a forest. My statement was “Your behaviour is traditional not logical”[my emphasis] and your response included: > [@bricker](#): > > "A person who says, “I am going to create my own set of rules to avoid transgressing G-d’s commandments,” is deliberately disassociating himself from the observant Jewish community. He is, in effect, creating his own parochial system instead of adopting the community system. [my emphasis] And then in your next post you use an example involving accounting practices and you say: > [@](#): > > Or would you acknowledge that as along as the practice is well-understood as a generally-accepted one, your views on the inconsistency are uselessly unconvincing to the community of accountants? [emphasis added] Honestly, have you stood back and looked at your own posts in an attempt to have _any frickin’ perspective whatsoever_? It doesn’t appear so. You are in furious agreement with me. I said these things were a matter of tradition not logic and your response amounts to “no they aren’t; they are matter of tradition, so you’re wrong!” Sheesh. Further, it’s not a matter of “tradition” meaning “_inter alia, living by it as best they understood the requirements of it_” as you say. As you’ve repeatedly admitted (nay, _asserted_) above, it’s about _tradition meaning tradition_. > [@](#): > > You say “pragmatism,” plays a pivotal role, but it’s incredibly difficult to be an observant Jew. … and it would be even more difficult if you could only eat food prepared by yourself to avoid the risk of someone cooking something for you in a forbidden manner. Your point fails basic logic. The fact my life is hard doesn’t mean it couldn’t be worse. > [@](#): > > But I repeat my earlier theory: your evaluation of “fanwankery,” arises from your basic certainty that there is no such thing as a G-d that gave Moses a set of laws to which the Jewish people consented to be bound. I have a basic certainty that all religious tenets are based only on tradition and pragmatism. But you don’t see me commenting in similar terms and extent on all religions; the particular sub-culture about which we are speaking appears to have a quite extraordinary array of silly OCD-like behavioural requirements, and seems to have a particular bent for contorted rationalisations to justify them. I don’t for one moment expect you to indulge in allowing yourself to have the perspective to see it, but the whole idea of the “eruv” sounds like something my sons would have dreamed up as an attempt to argue their way around a (substantive and rational) parental rule _when they were five years old_. If you want an example of “one man’s religion being another man’s belly laugh” you couldn’t do better. To hear supposedly smart greybeards giving it credence as if it actually makes some sort of sense (outside of a silly sophomoric verbal game) boggles the mind. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667/125 "2017-03-22T13:09:39Z")
Traditioooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon! Tradition! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667/126 "2017-03-22T13:38:48Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I know you think so but the need for expansion on my assertion is only necessary because you are so wrapped up in your infinitely detailed study of trees you can’t see that you are standing in a forest. > > My statement was “Your behaviour is traditional not logical”[my emphasis] . . . You are in furious agreement with me. Nope. I agree with you that tradition is involved, to be sure, but I argue that reliance on tradition is logical in these circumstances. > [@](#): > > I don’t for one moment expect you to indulge in allowing yourself to have the perspective to see it, but the whole idea of the “eruv” sounds like something my sons would have dreamed up as an attempt to argue their way around a (substantive and rational) parental rule _when they were five years old_. If you want an example of “one man’s religion being another man’s belly laugh” you couldn’t do better. To hear supposedly smart greybeards giving it credence as if it actually makes some sort of sense (outside of a silly sophomoric verbal game) boggles the mind. To the contrary, my perspective is fine, and more fluid than yours. I’m not Jewish. I don’t agree that God requires these practices of anyone; I believe that Christ Jesus was born the Son of God and fulfilled the covenants God made with His Chosen People. I am a Roman Catholic. But I understand Jewish practice, and can clearly see how it follows from basic postulates. You reject those postulates and therefor scorn the practices; you’re unwilling or unable to say, “If I accepted these basic postulates, then these practices make perfect sense.” ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667/127 "2017-03-25T11:17:30Z")
Someone should publish an article: “Weird Hacks to Fool your god that Actually Work”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667/128 "2017-03-25T18:59:40Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > Someone should publish an article: “Weird Hacks to Fool your god that Actually Work”. Perhaps they should first publish, “Deliberate Misunderstandings That People Keep Trying To Claim Are A Real Thing.” ---
**Author:** ![mage-girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@mage-girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mage-girl)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2017, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667/129 "2017-03-28T04:02:23Z")
> [@astro](#): > > I had no idea. Fascinating article. > > [There’s a Wire Above Manhattan That You’ve Probably Never Noticed](http://mentalfloss.com/article/91594/theres-wire-above-manhattan-youve-probably-never-noticed?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Partner&utm_campaign=FBK) My god, this is clever. Nothing wrong with a work-around as long as you’re not hurting yourself or others. Thanks for sharing. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-a-wire-above-manhattan-that-youve-probably-never-noticed-fascinating/781667.md?page=6)