>MOST of them haven't been produced long enough for people to truly KNOW whether or not they're BIFL

This is often repeated here, but it's actually nonsense that flatly contradicts the sub's obsession with "planned obsolescence." The very concept of planned obsolescence implies that it's possible to know how long an object will last on average given the choice of certain materials and construction techniques.

So which is it? Either we can have reasonable knowledge of how long objects will last without waiting around and watching how long it takes them to fail, or else the whole idea that products are designed to fail, like folks on this sub so often charge, is a spurious complaint.

All-Clad is definitely the better option from a durability standpoint. Enameled cast iron is great, but there's not much point in enameled stainless steel, and going LC in this case is mostly about aesthetics. Adding enamel to a stockpot will always inevitably make it less durable than simple stainless steel.

Their cast iron Dutch ovens are often that high. This isn't that; it's enameled steel and like $100.

It's a good illustration of why it's often best to stick with a company's main product lines. They're known for enameled cast iron, which is high quality and made in France, but because a lot of people like the colors and want other matching pieces, they've also branched out into ceramics and enameled steel, which they don't make in their own factories.

For the non-cast iron stuff, you're mainly paying for the pretty colors. They didn't build their reputation on ceramics or stockpots and aren't the best option for either.

I mean, there is some truth to this though. Compare a new Lodge to a vintage Griswold and the latter is noticeably more refined - lighter weight and smoothed. Not that the older pan is more durable, but the craftsmanship is better. They do still make cast iron pans like the old ones, but Lodge and other department store brands don't; you need to go to one of the expensive boutique makers to find one.

>The sub is meant to show off

No, it isn't, that's just what some people have tried to turn it into. I've been around here since the beginning, and the sub was never about "showing off" anything, it was about discussing high quality products and where to purchase them. It was years before it became a stream of pictures of random old things. It was at the inception a shopping sub.

Good sets are several hundred dollars. It's a smart thing to register for.

Well, yeah, he's definitely using his modern context; it's a work of modern philosophy, in response to other modern philosophy (like Hegel). Again, it's not a work of biblical exegesis. It's certainly worth turning to some secondary literature to understand what he's doing there rather than getting hung up by treating it like a bad piece of Old Testament scholarship. You can pretty much bracket any scholarship on the sacrifice of Isaac because it's just beside the point.

In its canonical form, the testing of Abraham is just that, a testing of Abraham. The narrative tension is built on Isaac being the child of the promise who is now being demanded to be offered back to God. To say that it's simply to make the point that child sacrifice is no longer necessary is a very shallow reading that might make sense divorced from canonical context but makes no sense when read canonically as Scripture.

Kierkegaard does read the story incorrectly, but his error is in treating the narrative tension as an ethical one--Abraham being asked to do that which violates the ethical, the killing of Isaac--rather than one that calls into question the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham. Abraham wasn't wrestling with the ethics of sacrificing his son, but he would have wrestled with the fact that the same God who had miraculously given him this child through whom he was to become the father of nations was now asking for that child back.

That said, focusing on whether Kierkegaard gets the biblical narrative correct is to completely miss the whole point of what he's doing, and his philosophical reflection on the story demands analysis on its own merits. the purpose isn't biblical exegesis.

Yeah, Augustine's most famous treatment of sin is literally a confession of his own captivity to sin. Not clear how Kierkegaard was original in that regard.