Zone1 Preservation of the American type of woman

[rupol2000]

The Greek language is the source of much of the English language.

The etymology is just as I posted before.

The ancient Greek language is a direct descendant of the Aryan language, which is as close as possible to the Vedic. Vedic, ancient Median and Tocharian languages can be considered almost proto-Aryan

 

[WinterBorn]

Then cannibals have equal rights?

As long as they do not violate the rights of others. This is still a stupid analogy.

 

[WinterBorn]

The ancient Greek language is a direct descendant of the Aryan language, which is as close as possible to the Vedic. Vedic, ancient Median and Tocharian languages can be considered almost proto-Aryan

So you say. Funny thing, I looked up the word on 3 different etymology sites and they all say the root is Greek.

But you know, what do those language experts like Merriam-Webster know, huh? Surely a russian troll know more. lol

 

[rupol2000]

And all languages, directly or indirectly descended from Aryan (lexically, this also applies to English), have traces of hatred and contempt for dogs. For example, the English "divine" goes back to the Aryan "heavenly", whence the Vedic "dev", "devi", the English "right" goes back to the Vedic "Rta" - the heavenly order. English irregular verbs are inherited from Proto-Aryan inflectional roots. This clearly shows that the aristocratic peoples despised the dog tribe.

 

[rupol2000]

As long as they do not violate the rights of others

Firstly, it violates the rights to preserve culture and the right to security.

Secondly, where is it written that "rights" are interpreted that way? Why, then, is a declaration of rights needed, where all legal rights are clearly described?

 

[WinterBorn]

And all languages, directly or indirectly descended from Aryan (lexically, this also applies to English), have traces of hatred and contempt for dogs. For example, the English "divine" goes back to the Aryan "heavenly", whence the Vedic "dev", "devi", the English "right" goes back to the Vedic "Rta" - the heavenly order. English irregular verbs are inherited from Proto-Aryan inflectional roots. This clearly shows that the noble peoples despised the dog tribe.

\Yes, and they thought spirits caused diseases, saw women as property, had slaves, and were a primitive people. Not exactly what I would choose to model our society on.

But you go right ahead.

 

[WinterBorn]

Firstly, it violates the rights to preserve culture and the right to security.

Secondly, where is it written that "rights" are interpreted that way? Why, then, is a declaration of rights needed, where all legal rights are clearly described?

I explained all this in the other thread. You got all pissy when I did. It has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. I am not rehashing this every time you feel cornered in a debate.

Constitutional scholars and historians agree with me. No one, not even the wackos on this forum agree with you. Just stop.

 

[rupol2000]

\Yes, and they thought spirits caused diseases, saw women as property, had slaves, and were a primitive people. Not exactly what I would choose to model our society on.

But you go right ahead.

The passage about slaves is especially funny, given that the main Aryan ideal is the hero-liberator. Slavery is entirely derived from the chthonic matriarchal-dog cultures of old Europe and the Near East. Dog in itself is ideal slave.

The attitude towards a woman can be seen from the Slavic "devitsa"(girl) which means "heavenly", "star". They loved women, but not as depraved matrons. There is no more touching attitude towards a woman than in romantic chivalric ballads.

 

[rupol2000]

I explained all this in the other thread. You got all pissy when I did. It has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. I am not rehashing this every time you feel cornered in a debate.

Constitutional scholars and historians agree with me. No one, not even the wackos on this forum agree with you. Just stop.

You have no reasonable arguments. This is a self-evident scam. Protection of rights concerns only those rights that exist, and only those rights that are declared exist

 

[WinterBorn]

You have no reasonable arguments. This is a self-evident scam. Protection of rights concerns only those rights that exist, and only those rights that are declared exist

The argument relies on the understanding of the US Constitution. You obviously lack that, and cannot even find the simplest parts within it. Even when given the specific article involved.

Per your previous statement, the US Constitution says absolutely nothing about preserving culture.

There is a stated right to equal protection under the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

The passage about slaves is especially funny, given that the main Aryan ideal is the hero-liberator. Slavery is entirely derived from the chthonic matriarchal-dog cultures of old Europe and the Near East. Dog in itself is ideal slave.

The attitude towards a woman can be seen from the Slavic "devitsa"(girl) which means "heavenly", "star". They loved women, but not as depraved matrons. There is no more touching attitude towards a woman than in romantic chivalric ballads.

And it was an ancient culture that is gone. Your claims that it is the source of all things is laughable.

Hence your ridiculous desire to spend tax money to incentivize a woman staying at home. Which is only desirable because of your own insecurities where women are concerned.

You only value women who are beautiful (by your standards) and who serve you.

 

[rupol2000]

The argument relies on the understanding of the US Constitution. You obviously lack that, and cannot even find the simplest parts within it. Even when given the specific article involved.

idle talk
Rights and freedoms are what are defined as rights and freedoms

 

[rupol2000]

And it was an ancient culture that is gone. Your claims that it is the source of all things is laughable.

Hence your ridiculous desire to spend tax money to incentivize a woman staying at home. Which is only desirable because of your own insecurities where women are concerned.

You only value women who are beautiful (by your standards) and who serve you.

The man of the right culture also serves the woman, he protects her from villains and hardships. This is the male role, otherwise a man is not a man. Therefore, in the laws of the United States there is a man's responsibility even for what a woman does.

 

[WinterBorn]

idle talk
Rights and freedoms are what are defined as rights and freedoms

And those rights are defined in the US Constitution. The guaranteed of equal protection under the law does not need to specify anything except equal protection for all citizens.

 

[WinterBorn]

The man of the right culture also serves the woman, he protects her from villains and hardships. This is the male role, otherwise a man is not a man. Therefore, in the laws of the United States there is a man's responsibility even for what a woman does.

And if a woman chooses to protect herself from villains and hardships? You would have her be subservient to a man, give up her career goals, and turn control of her life to a man. Because that is the way they used to do it.

Sorry. American women don't need a man.

 

[rupol2000]

And those rights are defined in the US Constitution

The rights are declared in the declaration of rights and additions. The right to carry weapons and militia in the second amendment, where the right to fuck in the ass and marry on this basis is declared? What is the revision number?

 

[rupol2000]

And if a woman chooses to protect herself from villains and hardships?

It's allowed, but usually she can't, so she has to trade ***** if she doesn't have money.

 

[rupol2000]

Why is there censorship on the word "c*nt"?

 

[WinterBorn]

The rights are declared in the declaration of rights and additions. The right to carry weapons and militia in the second amendment, where the right to fuck in the ass and marry on this basis is declared? What is the revision number?

You cannot be this dense.

It does not have to be spelled out. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. That means the rights of the marriage extends to all consenting adults.

You may not like it. But the highly educated men and women on the US Supreme Court ruled on it, and constitutional scholars agree.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's allowed, but usually she can't, so she has to trade ***** if she doesn't have money.

Yes, there was a time that women needed a man to protect her. Now women can protect themselves. My girl is a helluva shot with her revolvers and has a permit to carry. She can protect herself.