Only to someone who has a poor understanding of the implications of determinism, just as he himself defines it to be.
Nope..YOU keep defining determinism with necessitation added to it and imputing it on others.
It's a dishonest straw man which you need to quit with.
Your position in untenable, some strange mix of compatibilism and Libertarian free will, which happen to be incompatible.
If determinism is true, events must necessarily evolve without deviation. That is according to how you define determinism.
You can't have it both ways. If things cannot happen differently, they must necessarily happen as determined.
That, essentially, is necessitation.
Necessity
Necessity is the idea that everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is necessary, and can not be otherwise. Necessity is often opposed to chance and contingency. In a necessary world there is no chance. Everything that happens is necessitated.
So even if the agent has strength, skill, endurance, opportunity, implements, and knowledge enough to engage in a variety of enterprises, still he lacks mastery over his basic attitudes and the decisions they produce
Bullshit.
Nah, not bullshit, just - if deterministic - how the world works.
Including cognition, how our proclivities form and drive decision making, thought and action.
The basics
again;
''Human behavior is affected both by genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances within the context of their inherited genetic potential. The scientific question is just how experience and hereditary potential interact in producing human behavior.
Each person is born into a social and cultural setting—family, community, social class, language, religion—and eventually develops many social connections. The characteristics of a child's social setting affect how he or she learns to think and behave, by means of instruction, rewards and punishment, and example. This setting includes home, school, neighborhood, and also, perhaps, local religious and law enforcement agencies. Then there are also the child's mostly informal interactions with friends, other peers, relatives, and the entertainment and news media. How individuals will respond to all these influences, or even which influence will be the most potent, tends not to be predictable. There is, however, some substantial similarity in how individuals respond to the same pattern of influences—that is, to being raised in the same culture. Furthermore, culturally induced behavior patterns, such as speech patterns, body language, and forms of humor, become so deeply imbedded in the human mind that they often operate without the individuals themselves being fully aware of them.''
I have described exactly how and why and when and where the abilities of humans clearly and unambiguously involved power over basic attitudes and decisions, from the ability to do so directly through manipulation of those neurons that are the basic attitudes, and the contingencies that they use to produce decisions.
Yet you persistently fail to account for the underlying mechanisms and drivers of thought and behaviour, which have nothing to do with the ideological notion of free will.
Rather than address those clear controls available to us with respect for our cognitive states, you wave your hands and the try to claim definitions preclude the obvious answer: that organisms can control themselves to a quite heavy degree.
The 'controls' themselves are subject to the same principles as everything else that happens within the system.
If the mechanisms of control, the prefrontal cortex is damaged or underdeveloped, there is little or no self control.
That is what you conveniently
ignore;
The brain is fundamentally altered by damage to the OFC.
"It helps explain why people with damage to the OFC behave the way they do," he said. "They have the ability to learn normally about their world, but they have an area of their brains that is sluggish and inflexible in guiding their behavior, trapping them in a prison of habit, so to speak. These findings give us insight into how the brain is organized."
You tie yourself in knots with trying to define that clear process out of existence, simply because the extent to which it is accessible to you in particular happens to be limited.
Quit being a victim of your own inaction, learn the processes by which you can craft your own behavior, and become the master of yourself rather than submitting to some false master you name necessity.
Try again. This time try to show a little understanding of cognition and how it works.
Here's a hint;
Quote;
''There is evidence from clinical groups for the relative independence of social cognition from other aspects of cognition. For example, individuals with either frontal or prefrontal cortex damage show impaired social behavior and functioning, despite the retention of intact cognitive skills such as memory and language (15 17). The fact that social cognition can become selectively impaired after such an injury while sparing nonsocial cognition suggests that unique neural circuits subserve social cognition. A similar dissociation between social cognition and nonsocial cognitive skills is often observed in persons with prosopagnosia, who show selective impairments in the perceptions of faces but preserved perception for nonsocial stimuli (18). Such findings have led Kanwisher (18) to conclude that facial processing is a result of domain-specific, rather than general, neural mechanisms.''
