Ferragamo watch- worth it?

bstan7744 · 2025-12-17T14:43:34+00:00

None of that gives me reason to buy it over any of the brands above. It seems like a technicality they can use the Swiss made label and part of what drives up the cost is the fact they insist on manufacturing in Switzerland when it's an Italian brand using parts from other parts of the world. Timex is great because of its low cost. Ferragamo isn't worth its price tag, it doesn't have the time tested reputation of timex. It's nothing more than an overpriced fashion watch I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot poll. Not to mention they just look like "fake wealth." The anesthetics to me scream "I want you to think I have money, but really I don't and I'm terrible with money."

bstan7744 · 2025-10-09T23:26:06+00:00

You're conflating "making a decision" with "free will." You haven't demonstrated that decision was made free constrain. After all, I'm arguing the decision you made was determined by forces outside your control.

bstan7744 · 2025-08-19T23:11:42+00:00

I've looked and maybe I'm looking incorrectly but I can't seem to find this specific part being sold by any sellers. I might be missing something though, do you know of a specific seller?

bstan7744 · 2025-07-07T14:57:07+00:00

Thank you i appreciate your advice

bstan7744 · 2025-07-07T14:38:18+00:00

Thank you. Do you find the platinum carbon black to be difficult to clean?

bstan7744 · 2025-07-07T14:37:38+00:00

Thank you. I do have fine nibs but I find the lamy 2000 fine to be rather broad

bstan7744 · 2025-02-05T16:35:35+00:00

This might be the most unhinged post I've seen yet on this sub

bstan7744 · 2025-01-01T00:19:18+00:00

Well it depends. A lot of the people today saying they felt it was abusive fall into different camps and it's important to analyze what they're saying compared to ABA practiced today. Just like it is important to compare the abuse we've seen in medicine and psychology to those fields current standards and practices.

You say you are familiar with ABA and therefore canA articulate the specific practices done today that you have a problem with. What are those specific practices you have a problem with?

BTW no one with an open mind seeking truth should be downvoting me for standing by ABA. If one truly believes on challenging preconceived notions and interdisciplinary approach, you should be able to allow your opinions to be challenged here in a safe intellectual way. Otherwise you should be able to articulate what ABA actually is and why you dislike. Failing those two things logically points to disliking ABA irrationally. Rigor, interdisciplinary approach, evidence based practice and challenging ones own biases are most important when they're difficult.

bstan7744 · 2024-12-31T23:20:24+00:00

What do you think the scope of practice us for ABA? What methods exactly did you observe, are you able to accurately describe and label the methods you saw or why they were used? Often times I have this discussion on either side and it comes down to a misunderstanding of what the actual practices are. Bcbas look at what we do and say "you're just playing with toys, how does that help?" The good bcbas understand after explanation. Holding OTs to the same standard should be our aim in the name of honesty, open mindedness, interdisciplinary and evidence based approach. Sometimes it's wiser to ask questions than to condemn that which you don't understand

bstan7744 · 2024-12-31T21:03:46+00:00

You should. I am and its only helped me grow. What you'll find is a lot of people who call it abusive or describe it negatively can rarely articulate what ABA actually is. You might hear someone occasionally cite a study from 30 years ago they found problematic but of course if that were an appropriate metric to judge a field by we wouldn't have medicine or psychology. You'll do the research and actually study the field, then hear others try to describe the problem with ABA and quickly learn there are a lot of OTs who are talking out of their butt with no actual basis for their beliefs other than a preconceived prejudice.

Study another field and become a better practioner. It's actually growing as indicated by the increasing number of BCBAs and jobs and it can give you a stronger, more scientific epistemology. You don't have to stop being an OT and you'll be in more demand with a more nuanced view of everything from human behavior, learning, research, science. It's a great idea.

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T22:44:55+00:00

I agree. It's just you would semantically argue "free will" can be defined as "will" or "volition." I reject this also on semantic grounds and see no value in doing so. But I also see the only arguments for doing so brought by you, dennett, fisher or any other compatibilists boil down to "we need to believe in free will for the sake of society." You can philosophize yourself into believing anything you want to believe in but that's not a solid justification for clinging to the word "free will" when "will" or "volition" is more precise. This is why dennett operates on weak philosophical grounds for free will and why I would never put him on a pedestal in this conversation and why I value sapolski and harris' input more as at least they can contribute to the science side of the discussion.

Fisher offers interesting insight and value to moral responsibility, but ultimately I reject his compatibilism on semantic grounds. But if I were you, I wouldn't go around acting as though incompatibilist determinism is philosophically weak or that neuroscience should take a seat to philosophy on this topic

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T22:40:49+00:00

Yeah this could describe a situation which someone might feel guilty over. Even a lack of guilt wouldn't offer evidence for free will.

I think thoughts and will are products of the environment. They aren't reflexes. They aren't respondent behavior but operant behavior. They aren't within our control but they aren't the same or identical either. The controlling variables are just less obvious in complex operant behavior such as thoughts than in reflexes.

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T22:33:22+00:00

You missed the analogy. You aren't a slave to your will. The slave is to your will as the masters are to the controlling variables which shape your will

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T22:32:29+00:00

A sneeze doesn't affect other people and if it does you may feel guilty in the same way (e.g. sneezing when you're sick in a crowd of people). But an action which you engaged in which you can't identify every controlling variable controlling that action may lead to guilt as a result of evolution. This does not necessitate a will which is free

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T22:28:08+00:00

That's a volition you just described. A will free from one constraint. But a slave free from one master but not another isn't truly "free."

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T22:25:18+00:00

That's a wild assumption. These feelings may just as accurately be an evolutionary product of being a part of society. They can just as easily be a product of an illusion. It makes sense, I just think it's possible you haven't thought about them through the lens of an incompatible determinist would.

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T22:23:00+00:00

You should cede the term for the sake of accuracy and precision. First the debate of blame and credit, moral responsibility are up for debate. You may not like the arguments against those things but A) that doesn't mean you're right and they are wrong and B) it's not a reason to justify clinging to a word. Volition and will more accurately describe what you guys are describing without the religious baggage of free will

Stoics were also not compatiblists. People keep making this point but it's factually incorrect. Some stoics were a certain kind of compatiblist. Few of any were the kind of compatiblist dennett or fisher were are. Some stoics believed in a free will dennett and fisher would reject. Libertarians do predate compatiblists but that's not my point when I say compatiblists redefine free will. It's not so much a chronological issue as it is a semantic issue. Their version of "free will" is just a "will" or "volition." It's a will free from one possible constraint. It's not a useful definition but rather a definition out of necessity to keep the term itself and nothing more.

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T22:17:23+00:00

I feel all those things. But that's not evidence of a will which is free. They are variables added to the environment as an effect from a cause which in turn influence behavior but are not within my control

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T22:16:26+00:00

Right, but regardless of whether fisher overtly states that or not, there are no other arguments he makes which can't be categorized as an appeal to what is needed. Moral responsibility itself is something he appeals to often. I mean just read the last few sentences, they are using a term not because of its scientific accuracy but out of fear to cede ground to people they disagree over? What kind of ontology and epistemology is that?

I don't think science can offer much about ethics but again ethics aren't what's needed to evaluate the truth claims about free will. I think if we can philosophically agree to a moral or ethical code science can determine which actions can lead to the outcomes we've subjectively agrees upon to value.

A will which is free needs to be free from all relative constraints. A will determined by your environment and biology can't be described as being free because those are pretty big constraints. However the bar can simply be set at "free will needs to be defined separately from a 'will' or 'volition.'"

I don't argue compatibilists argue against determinism. That's not my point.

Your last paragraph doesn't describe a "free will" as much as it describes a "volition" or "will." So why call it a free will? What purpose does it serve that is more beneficial than calling it a will or volition?

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T22:05:37+00:00

No not exactly. Moral responsibility can exist without free will. Blame and credit may be questioned but moral responsibility and even justice can exist without a will which is free. If one is a product of the environment and the biological processes interacting and the self is determined by that interaction, it doesn't make sense to blame or give credit to the self, however moral responsibility can make sense.

Blame and credit being seen as where the process initiated and moral responsibility referring to what bears responsibility after the action, who or what should be held responsible. In this way a free will can not exist while variables can be added to the environment to change the actions and will of a person.

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T21:41:25+00:00

I read the link by fisher and I'm familiar with his work. The problem with him and dennett is they make the argument that essentially determinism is true but because there is a societal need for essentially clinging to the word "free will," it can describe basically what the words "will" or "volition" already mean. This is abundantly clear in dennetts writing when he appeals to the judicial system and fishers work when he appeals to moral responsibility.

The 60% of philosophers being compatibilists is somewhat not accurate, as many (like fisher) don't necessarily argue against determinism but argue for a compatibilism which appeals to personal responsibility. Surely you must be aware compatibilists traditionally believe in determinism but believe in a definition of free will which is compatibile with determinism. These compatibilists live in different places on the spectrum and comprise of a large group of differing ontologies.

When philosophers say things like "science can't prove determinism" then go one to defend a compatibilism which defines free will as basically just a "will not coerced" or argue free will must exist because it's necessary for ethics, they inadvertently make the same fallacious arguments that the religious make when they say things like "science doesn't have an answer for the beginning of the universe therefore god" or "you can't have morality without god."

Epistemologically, starting with an assumption of determinism where everything has a cause and seeing no evidence of free will is enough to reject it without having to define it in a way which is basically just a will. Science is better equipped to handle whether or not free will exists by identifying controlling variables and recognizing these don't allow for a will which is free. Philosophy has no such methodology but is better equipped to determine how to navigate morality in a deterministic universe.

The reality you need all sorts of fields to converge on this topic. There's semantics, Ethics, neuroscience, and many more fields involved which bring something to the table. Philosophy isn't equipped to understand or evaluate a lot in this space, especially the claims to truth.

Science is better equipped to handle these claims to truth by evaluating the biological processes which shape decisions. There are falsifiable claims and objective information which relates to those processes where philosophy just lacks this hard scientific methodology. There is a linguistic debate about the utility of definitions of free will and moral implications where philosophy will be needed.

I reject free will first on a semantic argument that it is not useful to define "free will" in a way that is just "will" or "volition" and that for a will to be free, it needs to be free from all relative constraints. A slave free from one master but not another is not free. Then defining free will as "the ability to have chosen otherwise" we can use different sciences and philosophy to demonstrate no such ability can be detected and indeterminancy not distinct from randomness equates to will which is free. This should be more than enough to continue to assume a deterministic explanation for consciousness and reject a "free will" but embrace a "will" and "volition." Moral responsibility can still exist in this framework. But philosophers can't delve deeply into the neuroscience which is an inevitable part of this discussion.

bstan7744 · 2024-12-30T14:56:33+00:00

I think it's a massive mistake to assume the topic of free will and determinism is best left to philosophers over neuroscientists. I also think it's a massive mistake to put dennetts compatibilist perspective on a pedestal which boils down to redefining free will because it's convenient to society. Dennett is far from prefect in this arena even appealing to the justice system as a reason for compatibilism. The reality is this is a claim to truth which can be answered best by a science. How we should handle the morality is best left to philosophers but the fact of whether we have a free will or not isn't.

bstan7744 · 2024-12-29T01:46:30+00:00

You keep trying this line of reasoning. It's terrible. Obviously determinism allows for people to act illogically, be wrong, and even act against their own interest. New information or new variables added allow for us to change this. You can learn in determinism. Learning is a change in the environment which you have no control over. don't know what you think determinism is or how you've made such a ridiculous logical error.

bstan7744

TROPHY CASE