1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

WAYWRN: Classic Menswear, Casual Style

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by acecow, Jul 6, 2011.

  1. Racing Green

    Racing Green Senior member

    Messages:
    337
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Location:
    Left Of The Dial
    Rubbish lift selfie -

    Aspesi blazer
    Polo RL shirt
    Uniqlo jeans
    Alberto Lanciotti chukkas
    Barbour bag

    [​IMG]
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. mrjester

    mrjester Senior member

    Messages:
    2,905
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Never heard of it. Googled it.

    http://www.aish.com/jl/m/mm/48948976.html

    Short answer: No real sound reason, just a bunch of maybe reasons.

    The Torah does not explain the reason for shatnez, and it is categorized as achok -- a law whose logic is not evident. The Torah has many such laws; we do not know why pork is forbidden, for example. And the prohibition of shatnez is equally strong.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2014
    2 people like this.
  3. Ianiceman

    Ianiceman Senior member

    Messages:
    2,651
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Location:
    Keyboard War Room
  4. SeaJen

    SeaJen Senior member

    Messages:
    1,631
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    My understanding is that it is reserved for the Kohanim.
     
  5. in stitches

    in stitches Senior member Moderator

    Messages:
    68,895
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Charm City
    

    This. Thanks for that.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. alexSF

    alexSF Senior member

    Messages:
    1,435
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Location:
    Italy
    It's the first time I've read of this very curious "law".
    I have a doubt...the canvassing it's usually made of linen, so even a canvassed 100% wool jacket will became a wool+linen garment?
     
  7. in stitches

    in stitches Senior member Moderator

    Messages:
    68,895
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Charm City
    


    why law in quotes? its a law. its a jewish law, and not everyone is jewish and not every jew follows it, but its no less of a law. but enough about religion.

    as to your doubt, actually, most canvassing is not made of linen. at least not anymore in RTW garments. even most custom stuff i imagine. i have all my suits checked and the most common area of linen is the lining under the collar, which i almost always have to have removed and replaced with a cotton or synthetic lining.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2014
    2 people like this.
  8. luv2breformed

    luv2breformed Senior member

    Messages:
    902
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Quote:
    I have an interpretation of the reason for this law from a Christian perspective. In fact, I just finished a course on the Torah for my degree. If anyone is interested feel free to PM me.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2014
  9. sugarbutch

    sugarbutch Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    15,837
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Location:
    People's Republic of San Francisco
    It's clear that some people don't understand that atheist/agnostic doesn't have to mean dick. But I'm sure they have rational explanations for all of their behaviors...
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. archetypal_yuppie

    archetypal_yuppie Senior member

    Messages:
    2,877
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Point out which statements were "dick." I also don't think I saw anyone identify themselves as athiest or agnostic, could have missed it. The point of discussion, in my opinion, is relevant to the forum, and valid and interesting in its own right.

    Being asked the question is only insulting if you are super aloof or insecure about your religion. When these rules were being formed, the rules of the religions in question were much more amorphous, and responded to a mix of necessity, pragmatism, and (surely some) random whims of the person(s) in power at that point in time.

    I'm not a fan of anyone ever adopting a stance that things cannot be questioned or discussed. The farther you go down that road, the wackier things get.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. Kid Nickels

    Kid Nickels Senior member

    Messages:
    8,658
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Location:
    Zulu minus 7
    

    gotcha … so it's only wool and linen.. that's interesting. Thanks!
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. in stitches

    in stitches Senior member Moderator

    Messages:
    68,895
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Charm City
    

    any time, buddy. :)

    ---

    i fear this is a bad idea, but what the hell.

    yuppie, your posts take an extremely assumptive stance. you are making assertions and stating them as fact. i think that is the part that is coming off, perhaps, not so good. and its one of the reasons i did not address your posts.

    the other, more significant, reason being, that that is not a discussion i want to have here.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2014
    2 people like this.
  13. sugarbutch

    sugarbutch Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    15,837
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Location:
    People's Republic of San Francisco
    

    Questions of fact are not dickish. Presumptions of arbitrariness and anachronism are dickish. Your way does not lead to a discussion; it leads to a defense. You seem like a smart enough person. That you have this blind spot about how you come off online is surprising.
     
    6 people like this.
  14. luv2breformed

    luv2breformed Senior member

    Messages:
    902
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    

    Best paragraph I've read all day. SB for president.
     
  15. archetypal_yuppie

    archetypal_yuppie Senior member

    Messages:
    2,877
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    

    I think part of it is that people are no longer accustomed to plain language, and perceive writing that is not full of smiley faces and adulation as hostile, when in fact it's just plain speaking. I know that's the case with me sometimes, but I don't want to bend to the pressure of the world of the warm and fuzzies.


    I'm trying to connect the dots on this, but can't get there. Is it that you think I presumed? I'm pretty sure I deduced. I don't feel the need to type out my reasoning, but presenting the case for JUST wool/linen being dissallowed as "arbitrary" is pretty easy.

    Also to be clear on my original point with respect to my presumptions, I'm not saying there was never a good reason ...I understand that the meat & cheese thing probably prevented some sickness a thousand years ago... I'm saying that times have changed.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2014
    1 person likes this.
  16. Claghorn

    Claghorn Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    10,005
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Location:
    Texas.
    I read an article somewhere, probably not anywhere reputable, about the importance of smileys in online communication as a means of conveying nuance. I believe an example was.

    "I'm going to be late to the meeting, so you'll need to hold down the fort, if you can manage that :) "

    vs

    "I'm going to be late to the meeting, so you'll need to hold down the fort, if you can manage that."

    I know in Korea, we use "^^" to indicate a light hearted tone. This is even if fairly professional emails. Typed word on the internet lacks the context of character, facial expression, and tone. Hence the need for a bit of a softer hand, especially with certain issues.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2014
  17. archetypal_yuppie

    archetypal_yuppie Senior member

    Messages:
    2,877
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Fuck you.

    I mean, Fuck you :)
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. sugarbutch

    sugarbutch Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    15,837
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Location:
    People's Republic of San Francisco
    Now, see. THAT is funny.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. in stitches

    in stitches Senior member Moderator

    Messages:
    68,895
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Charm City
    

    No, you keep stating things as fact.

    By saying:

    "At what point do these get thrown out the window for being totally arbitrary and dated?"

    and

    "but the case for JUST wool/linen being dissallowed as "arbitrary""

    You are stating that the law disallowing only wool and linen is arbitrary, and therefor senseless and must inevitable thrown out at some point in time, if not already. I guess if the law needs to fit into human logic, it may be arbitrary, but if one is following this law not for how much sense it makes, but because it is his faith, how arbitrary it may seem, or even be, is immaterial. But since you stated your opinion as fact, that leaves little to talk about.

    You have shown your hand and your determined thoughts, which you are rightly entitled to, but it does not invite anyone into wanting to discuss the matter. It just leaves you with, ok, that is your opinion, I have a different one, that is that.

    As well you said:

    "When these rules were being formed, the rules of the religions in question were much more amorphous, and responded to a mix of necessity, pragmatism, and (surely some) random whims of the person(s) in power at that point in time.
    I'm not a fan of anyone ever adopting a stance that things cannot be questioned or discussed. The farther you go down that road, the wackier things get.
    "

    Again, full of assumptions and statements of fact that you are more than welcome to have, but they are not "facts" that everyone agrees to, be it from other logical points of view, or simply from a faith basis. Either way, it does not invite any interest in conversation. Not to mention, one to who believes that the laws they follow are G-d given, will simply outright disagree with both of your posts in entirely.

    As mjester pointed out, for those that believe in and follow these laws, its not about having good reason. Its about adhering to the faith they believe in. And as he pointed out, the meat & milk prohibition has nothing to do with health concerns. It has long been speculated as such by people, but the law as given is simply that, a law in the Torah that Orthodox Jews follow, regardless of rhyme or reason. As such, times changing have no effect on the law to those practicing Orthodox Judaism.

    Now, to someone that sees that entire idea as foolish or senseless, its understandable why it would all be rubbish to them. But when speaking to someone who does have that faith, belief, and practice, when you speak in an assumptive manner, with all your conclusions forgone, as if I am supposed to say, "Oh, you are right. This law makes no sense. i think that in exactly 11 months is when it will officially be outdated and no longer followed." That is condescending and it leaves one with no interest in conversing the matter.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2014
    2 people like this.
  20. upr_crust

    upr_crust Senior member

    Messages:
    5,139
    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Location:
    NYC, NY
    

    Well, yeah, except if he has lube, condoms, and a glint in his eye . . .
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by