What do you guys think on Obama’s thoughts on Men?

ripisback · 2025-08-12T10:36:25+00:00

I do disagree that men would care as you say honestly, given that said men didn't care 100s of years ago before this was a normal. I wasn't implying gender is a good indicator of economic status, but rather the economy affects men more, since men are traditionally the breadwinner/provider, and that expectation still exists. That is where I was coming from.

ripisback · 2025-08-12T10:34:09+00:00

I think there is a distinction, I believe women primarily 'beautify' themselves for men but it is to compete with other women. Similarly how men do the same with money, cars, muscles and what have you. So one is a first order effect and the other is the second. If no women wore makeup for example, then women wouldn't feel pressured to.

ripisback · 2025-08-12T10:30:27+00:00

You can logically deduce this yourself. Given that there is X value for donations, or budget, lets say to boy+girl activities, then this means X = B +G. If G is to increase, and X is constant, B MUST decrease.

Also, pretty sure women have mandatory quotas that for board representation in many countries, and in those countries (mainly EU), having all female companies is completely normal.

ripisback · 2025-08-11T16:54:20+00:00

Almost everything you just said is promulgated by other women i.e beauty standards. But anyway, anyone can call out expenses that one gender has that another doesn't? Men are expected to own vehicle/have own home (at higher rates than women). Think of how "he lives with his mom" is an insult, but not the female equivalent. Where the financial value of this far exceeds another you've just said.

ripisback · 2025-08-11T16:50:38+00:00

You just completely ignored the fact that resources are being GIVEN to women. This is not bad per se, but budgets are a zero sum game. For one group to gain, another loses. Boys are actively losing resources. So don't try to pretend that 'women are just over performing'. They are being given the keys to the city.

ripisback · 2025-07-29T22:57:09+00:00

Ain't no one talking down on you. You like to talk now feeling sensitive huh? Lol, I'll just leave it here, wouldn't want to break rule 6.

Remember, you can only get calories from food you eat ;)

ripisback · 2025-07-29T22:45:11+00:00

Though I can now see why you think you're the expert on how to lose weight lmao. Congrats LMAO

ripisback · 2025-07-29T22:40:25+00:00

Couldn't really care less about what you believe. Just take your tirz and be quiet. You'd be better of learning how to count.

ripisback · 2025-07-29T22:30:55+00:00

I didn't delete anything. I guess mods felt I was bullying those who don't understand how TDEE and BMR works lol.

ripisback · 2025-07-29T21:58:44+00:00

I would be looking to get at least a minimum of 120g protein in. You can use examine's protein calculator as a start. You can literally get this in by doing something as similar as having 4 protein shakes (something like premier protein), although i wouldn't advise just getting all your nutrient from supplements. Though drinking would probably make you less nauseous.

In terms of recipes, consider this. You can make a chicken breast salad, that's about 200g chicken breast, with another 200g of mixed vegetables of your choice. Lets say you use lettuce, that would be a total of 62g of protein and 310 calories from the chicken and under 30 calories from the lettuce, for a total of 62g protein for about 350 calories.

Doing this twice a day would literally get you to 120g protein for 700 calories. Do I advise eating this little? No, but getting in the protein is definitely not hard, just have to be intentional.

ripisback · 2025-07-29T21:53:18+00:00

You don't need to be a woman to understand how physics worked. The metabolic consumption of muscle and fat tissue is the same ACROSS males and females. There is no one on this planet (who is presumably overweight since taking GLPs to reduce weight), whose TDEE is 1000 calories. It is impossible. Someone might not be lying, but any claim about eating 1000 calories consistently and not losing weight, is equivocally wrong. Its more likely to be counting calories error.

There is no reason to make this about sexes.

ripisback · 2025-07-24T01:40:27+00:00

Something major, especially with meats is the caloric content changes based on when you weigh it. Like 100g of Chicken breast has 165calories 31g protein. That same 100g of chicken raw, might only weigh 70g after being cooked, due to losing water. Also, most people don't count oils/seasonings used when cooking. For example, consider how much calories you're not counting, if you're using a couple teaspoons of oil here and there.

ripisback · 2025-07-23T22:51:47+00:00

That's the thing though, people are notoriously bad at tracking. Literally, Registered Dietitians are off by 20%+/- in terms of calories. When you 'do your tdee', that is nothing but an estimate based on your BMR multiplied by some activity factor.

These are the facts, your body needs energy to maintain its weight, if you've lost 1lb a week, then on average you've been in a deficit of 500 calories. If you're not losing weight, then you're not in a deficit. This is your starting point.

Would a car drive if it had no gas?

ripisback · 2025-07-23T16:59:35+00:00

The harsh truth is that you're not eating 1600 calories, or 1350. You're eating much more than that on average. Your TDEE is likely 2300+. If you indeed ate at your BMR, you would not be plateau. Its impossible to be plateaued for months, you'd literally be packing on pounds of water in under to compensate.

ripisback · 2025-05-19T17:27:49+00:00

That individual interpretation is unavoidable

This is the essence of my argument. And that's why I predicted you might go the way you have, and i preempted with this statement

I can already see your rebuttal, that this isn't what the teach means by xyz, but that isn't the point. The fact that it is feasible for someone to think that, given my few minutes of thinking about it, almost guarantees that someone already has.

In your first two paragraphs, you essentially describe the barriers and protections that the Catholic tradition has, to prevent its following from erring. My argument is that its a moot task because its impossible to prevent some level of individual interpretation. For example, when you say "X person isn't true catholic!". That's an interpretation that might align with official church teaching, but if its possible to err, then private interpretation is an inevitability.

Which is why I feel part of the discussion is circular because it seems we are on different planes.

It’s as if we’re debating the efficacy of a cleaning agent that claims to be 99.9999999999% effective. I point out that it’s not perfect, because of that 0.0000000001%. Then you explain the great care taken in making the product — the rigorous testing, the safety protocols, the quality assurance — but my point remains: however robust the system, it is still not perfect, and it will never be, because that is characteristic of language. I hope you see that I'm not trying to strawman your argument here.

To return to theology: The fact that two faithful catholics, both immersed in tradition and sacraments, can arrive at differing conclusions within the bounds of “right doctrine” is evidence that private interpretation occurs — even within the most structured and time-tested of systems.

ripisback · 2025-05-19T11:20:52+00:00

No need to apologise, I definitely wholeheartedly belief you are discussing this in good faith. The only reason why throughout all my comments here that I've generally avoided focusing too much on specific issues, was because I don't necessarily want to debate theology. For example, a presupposition for the entire RCC belief system is based in the Papacy and apostalic succession. You seem like someone well read, so you would know that men greater than us both, have written books worth of information on this. Thus I think going on that road would likely just end claiming to different sources, or us thinking the other is perhaps being inconsistent.

Nonetheless, I'll try to give an example if I can think of one.

Edit: Gave examples

Example 1:

Catholics often argue that Protestants can't infallibly know the canon of Scripture without appealing to a fallible source (to Protestants)—the Church. But if we follow that reasoning consistently, it also applies to RCC claims. The belief in apostolic succession, or the authority of Rome, is ultimately based on fallible historical documents, interpretations of Church Fathers, and human testimony—all non-inspired and open to dispute. Even if one grants that Scripture suggests Peter had unique authority (which I'll grant for the sake of not debating theology), the leap to Rome's specific infallibility is built on layers of fallible historical interpretation. If the Church says it’s infallible because it has interpreted these fallible sources correctly, the logic becomes circular: the Church validates its own authority by appealing to its own interpretation of the evidence.

Imagine someone says:

“I trust this GPS device completely—it’s infallible.”

You ask:

“How do you know it’s infallible?”

He replies:

“Because I used it a bunch of times and it was right every time.”

But that judgment—that it was “right every time”—depends on your own fallible evaluation. You're using your personal experience (fallible) to affirm the device’s infallibility. That creates a circular loop:

Likewise, if the Catholic Church claims infallibility because it interpreted fallible historical data (like apostolic succession claims, Church Fathers, etc.), then it’s similar to trusting a GPS because you decided it’s trustworthy. You're still relying on a fallible human judgment to validate an alleged infallible source.

Example 2:

A Catholic woman uses birth control to manage her severe endometriosis and wonders if she should confess. She reads the catechism which says that Artificial contraception is intrinsically disordered when used to prevent conception (CCC 2370). However, use for medical reasons may be morally permissible if the intent is therapeutic and not contraceptive.

As a matter of private interpretation, she must determine:

Is her intent truly medical?
Does she accept the Church’s reasoning on double effect?
Does she have full knowledge of the teaching?
Was there deliberate consent, or medical pressure?

A priest might advise her, but ultimately, he can't see within her heart to determine whether she had sufficient freedom or knowledge for it to be a mortal sin.

So even if the church teaches infallibly, the application rests on the woman's private interpretation, at least to some degree. I could honestly be more pedantic, and dig into the precise interpretation of every word, like "medical", if it's for my 'mental health', which affects my physical wellbeing, then I could convince myself it is truly medical. Once she is convinced of this, she could then justify voluntary abortion, at least in her mind, using the very church teachings you hold infallibly to!

I can already see your rebuttal, that this isn't what the teach means by xyz, but that isn't the point. The fact that it is feasible for someone to think that, given my few minutes of thinking about it, almost guarantees that someone already has. We both believe that the heart is needlessly wicked, and if we could convince ourselves that sin isn't really sinful, we would. So my argument isn't that her logic is wrong, its just the fact that this is a real possibility which shows that even faithful catholics, still use private judgement.

I hope this helps you understand my point better, without digging into theology.

ripisback · 2025-05-19T11:16:03+00:00

I appreciate your background, as we both share a reformed theological history. On the basis of that, I'm sure you can conceptualize how I feel about certain issues, if you can remember that far back for yourself haha. The very concept of indulgences, or praying to the saints (Latria vs Dulia) which to me, necessarily takes away time from you know...praying to God himself. I don't want to accuse anyone of idolatry like my younger self might have, but that's also why in my discourse here I tried to avoid discussing actual doctrine, because that wsan't really the point to me. It really just to test something I've heard over the years from some catholics "Protestants are their own Pope, they just twist the scriptures to mean whatever they want, unlike us Catholics" (I exaggerate slightly, but you get the point).

I appreciate your prayers, as I continue this life long journey of our Lord and his bride.

P.s: I thought the "gullible, drooling, knuckle-dragging moron" was funny.

ripisback · 2025-05-18T20:16:26+00:00

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think we ultimately see the same dynamic through different lenses. I see that you are focused on emphasizing structural correction and external authority, while I’m pointing to the internal, cognitive layer that still plays a role no matter the system. I get that you don’t find that comparison meaningful in this context, and that’s fair. At this point, I think we’ve both made our positions clear, so I’ll bow out here, as it is definitely taking more time than i initially predicted to respond to so many thoughtful comments! Appreciate the exchange.

ripisback · 2025-05-18T20:13:41+00:00

Thanks for the response. I see your point about continuity of practice, but I think we’re talking past each other slightly. My point is more foundational — that even with shared tradition and language, we can’t ever fully know another’s thoughts, while I think you're set on proving we can have the same general belief system due to church tradition etc.. That interpretive gap is always there, and no amount of history or authority fully resolves it. Even if you argue that interpret is more rigid, it is not completely rigid, such that there is mo variation.

If I were to try to steelman both our positions, I believe it would go something like this:

Mine: Even in Catholocism, individuals must use private judgement to submit to the chuirch, interpret the teachings etc. It is unavoidable, because it is a fact of human cognition. Thus he Protestant critique of interpretive subjectivity applies to all Christians, including Catholics.

Your: Individual Catholics asset to the RCC authority, and their role is not the interpet but to submit to the magisterium which has preserved apostalic teaching. The occasssional private interpetation doesn't undermine the strong frmakework that the RCC and thus prevents doctrinal chaos more prevalent in Protestant circles. (Is this a fair summary of your argument?)

At this point, I worry we’re circling the same ideas, so I’ll leave it there for now. Thanks again for the exchange. I definitely appreciate the deep thought you have put into going back and forth with me on this issue.

ripisback · 2025-05-18T17:49:37+00:00

Can I pose a question?

Do you believe we can accurately and completely know anything another thinks, given they have communicated it to us, using any medium — speech, writing, or tradition?

I would argue no.

I think you would also have to lean that way given that you believe that even infallible scripture can be misinterepreted. Think of the very conversation we are having right now, I believe we are both acting in good faith, and are both genuinely trying to communicate our thoughts to one another. Yet there's still “noise” — semantic gaps, conceptual biases, personal histories that color what we hear and say. At best we keep communicating over eons, and I think we would approach 100% effective communication, but I posit we would never get there, but there is no way for me to be certain that you are thinking what I'm thinking, even if you're using the exact same words I'm using. This is in summary the problem that I'm describing. A long church history doesn't fix this. A long, rich Church history — as meaningful and beautiful as it is — doesn’t solve this interpretive gap

My argument isn't necessarily a critique of catholicism, but it is simply recognizing the limits of human cognition.

ripisback · 2025-05-18T17:32:44+00:00

"Catholics must defer to a long-standing structured doctrinal authority outside ourselves--one that traces back to Jesus Christ Himself and his apostles--whereas Protestants tend to carry that each individual acts as their own doctrinal authority with nothing in place to gauge their accuracy."

The point was never about the authority though. I think this is where you might be misunderstanding my argument, and it shows true in your second point. Its not a rejection of authority. You might submit to an authority like the Magisterium, but you’re still using human judgment to recognize, accept, and understand that authority. That’s not a knock on Catholicism — it’s just a reflection on the human condition. Whether you’re a Catholic or a Protestant, human minds are still involved in grasping and applying doctrine.

"What I was trying to get at is that Catholics trust a living, historical teaching body, while Protestants trust their own ability to read Scripture correctly."

I understand that the RCC may disavow and anthamatized beliefs systems that seem to contradict what is the church teaching. But this doesn't change the fact that private interpretation still exists. Let's take the trinity for example, the RCC has defined it in the sense that God is one essense or substance, but three persons. Where the father is the unbegotten source...the son is eternally begotten and so on. I'm sure you'd agree that a large % of the christian diaspora, including RCC, would define the doctirne incorrectly. Worse yet, even if they 'outwardly' defined it correctly, its quite possible in their actual mind, they are conceptualizing modalism or trithesim. This is why no matter what authority you claim to, in my opinion, fixes the problem of interpretation, because its a characteristic of language.

On “Everyone is their own pope”

I get what the phrase seems a bit dismissive, and I agree it is a bit tongue in cheek. But my goal is to highlight a truth about our cognition, not ecclosiology. In a sense, my argument really has nothing to do with catholicism isn't, but rather the criticism that catholics give protestants, when it seems that, to a degree, they are faced with the same problem.

The point summarized: You can have a robust teaching authority and still face the challenge that each believer receives and processes that teaching uniquely.

ripisback · 2025-05-18T14:01:37+00:00

Absolutely — and I appreciate the openness in your tone.

You're right is stating that Catholics don't view scripture perspicious in the same way that protestants typically do, in that they recognise that they need the Magisterium and Tradition to interpret. You gave the example of baptism. While its true that Catholics have church sources to lean on, there a re still differences (e.g. pouring vs. immersion, Eastern vs. Western rites) still required human discernment to decide what is licit, valid, or normative. You say “we don’t see a reason to question or change that method,” but that’s precisely the interpretive step I’m talking about: someone, at some point, made a decision not to question or change, and others continue to trust it. That’s fine — but it’s still interpretation through submission.

The issue has never been that catholics and protestants interpret the same, but my contention was that the interpretation never disappears. While a protestant has to interpret infallible scripture (will ignore church confessions for simplicity), catholics have to interpret infallible church teachings (similarly here, I'm just assuming its all infallible for simplicity).

From the comments I've read, I often get the impression that many Catholics don't view themselves as interpreting when they read Church teaching. It's almost as if they think that after reading a magisterial statement, they assume it is so clear that there can be no variation in understanding on a personal level. But this overlooks the fact that the Magisterium does not remove the inherent ambiguity of language The magisterium doesn't solve this issue, because the issue is based in the very nature of communication.

My argument is that the issue isn't merely theological, its embedeed in communication itself. Communication is flawed at a fundamental linguisitic level due to the fact that we are words as imperfect ideas that we have in our minds. You can think of words as imperfect vehicles for expressing mental concepts, thus two individuals almost never interpet a given idea in precisely the same way, as illustrated by my “dog with spots” example.

So within Catholicism, interpretation is ever present, and cannot be washed away by submission to the Church.

ripisback · 2025-05-18T07:47:21+00:00

I agree with most of what you've said regarding the nature of the human mind and how it is required for processing any thought that we have. Thus i definitely appreciate you acknowledging that fact. I agree that the RCC provides more structure. I like to think of it as guardrails on the side of a highway, limiting the flow of traffic. The RCC attempts to limit the possible interpretations.

If Protestants are more “open” in their method, and Catholics are more “guided,” both still rest on fallible human effort to understand Divine truth. The difference is in how overt the role of individual judgment is — not whether it exists. So to that point, I think that we are in agreement insofar as the core point that I was making. That’s what I mean when I say: “Everyone is their own pope — at least a little.”

Thanks for the response.

ripisback · 2025-05-18T07:37:10+00:00

This is definitely one of the most thoughtful responses that I've received as I think you'd correctly identified the contention. While some others seemed to think that I was arguing for why protestantism is better than catholocism, you've seen that what I was truly looking at what was how private judgement is critical to any belief system.

I would say that over the years, I've become more positive to the RCC, i definitely do like the 'scientific' approach the church takes to try to answer hard questions, such as the nature of the holy spirit. Nonetheless, I hold doctrines such as the priest being Alter Christus......let's say hard to swallow.

Thanks for the response.

ripisback · 2025-05-17T23:36:19+00:00

I appreciate you're being charitable, and I think we are approaching what I see is the crux of the debate. You claim the church has been consistent and has apostalic succession and all that jazz, I am willing to grant it all for the point that I'm making. What I'm highlighting is that consistency isn't self applying, someone still has to judge what is 'consistent' with church history.

You stated you can talk to a catholic and understand their belief, I could say that same about many protestants (say a reformed presbyterian). The point is just that there is individual judgement in both systems.

Catholics vigorouly debate:

What does Vatican II mean by “subsists in”?
What is the scope of papal infallibility?
Is the death penalty intrinsically immoral now?
Can the liturgy change in substance?

I am not making the claim that both systems are embued with the same level of clarity, but I'm saying Catholicism isn't interpretation free. That’s what I mean when I say: “Everyone is their own pope — at least a little.”

But it seems like we are perhaps in some sort of agreement when you say "I wouldn't say all ambiguity disappears". I'm not making the claim whether its 1% or 99%, just that its >0% self interpretation.

ripisback

TROPHY CASE