EA Maclean

162 posts

EA Maclean

EA Maclean

@ea_maclean

Katılım Ocak 2026
1 Takip Edilen1 Takipçiler
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@ClarkeMicah @WalkerMarcus Doesn't it come down to a question we can't answer? How spread the word effectively to modern unbelievers: plain words (an English koine) or 16/17th century prose unfamiliar to most but poetic to a very few? Is the CoE's choice really down to fear? Of what?
English
1
0
0
151
Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens@ClarkeMicah·
.@walkermarcus. 1/2 Does it still elude you? The liturgical reformers in the C of E are afraid of the power of the Prayer Book and the Authorised Version. And after 60 years they have ensured that even good ministers do not even know them.
Marcus Walker@WalkerMarcus

As this is not a Eucharist, why are people togged up in copes and stoles? And what is this hodge-podge of a liturgy? It seems to be half a Eucharist that just... stops. We do, rather famously, have very beautiful non-Eucharistic services for both the morning and the evening.

English
7
1
52
5.4K
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@AndrewT84537063 @ClarkeMicah Or Iran tried to build deterrence short of going nuclear. Negotiation. An arsenal of missiles. Support for resistance to illegal attack and occupation by US allies. Deterrence failed. Unless Israel is defanged, are nuclear weapons not their last resort?
English
1
0
3
72
Dak2Boe
Dak2Boe@AndrewT84537063·
@ClarkeMicah I've been Well educated population, with immense history. Ruled by religious fantastics who spend the country's wealth on creating an immense attack arsenal stockpile Plus support of subversion forces in the region. Gunslinger duel.. Israel drew first. Get over it
English
2
0
4
517
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@eva_evato @ClarkeMicah I should have said there is nothing in Marx about capitalists surrendering without a fight. What he thought the laws of history didn't preclude violence. He was wrong about there being laws, but not about violence, and not about capitalists defending their interests to the end.
English
0
0
0
20
Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens@ClarkeMicah·
.@eva_evato. I am aware of the Marxist pretence that there is no absolute right or wrong. I am contrasting it with the modern Left's incessant and inconsistent assertion that there is a right and wrong side of history.
Eva @TUSCoalition@thisisyourparty@Socialist_ party@eva_evato

@ClarkeMicah @martinsfc1 “…right and wrong is a Marxist rhetorical trick” Do you enjoy embarrassing yourselves by proving you have no clue @ClarkeMicah :- Marxism rejects timeless moral truths. What is considered "right" or "wrong" changes depending on the ruling class and the mode of production.

English
5
1
11
3.3K
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@ClarkeMicah @thanksalot_sir Would you argue that if they don't stay in other European countries they are not refugees but economic migrants who should be turned back?
English
2
0
0
34
Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens@ClarkeMicah·
.@thanksalot_sir. This is missing the point on an Olympic scale. No doubt, some of them will. But some won't. And many who will complain when they arrive here will be the same people who cheered on the war which drove them from their former homes.
Sir ThanksAlot@thanksalot_sir

@ClarkeMicah Why not just stay in any of the other European countries they 'trudge' into?

English
4
1
13
2.2K
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@ClarkeMicah "Utopian", "ally of the Left": a pity this delusion detracts from otherwise just condemnation. Nothing utopian or left-wing about the rampage through west Asia and north Africa the US and Israel think in their national interest. Not conservative: not left-wing.
English
0
0
0
119
Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens@ClarkeMicah·
'Will we never grow out of the Utopian fantasy that we can go stomping round the world, telling other countries what to do? It is as if we have been hypnotised. All someone needs to do is to talk of Winston Churchill or of ‘appeasement’, and grown men and women lose their minds and start howling for war.' mol.im/a/15667435
English
113
231
1K
66.1K
LeninandOut
LeninandOut@LeninLenout·
@ea_maclean @JohnBlackt548 @ClarkeMicah Your history is very rusty indeed. I don't see any reason to replace our current system with appointing people with political allegiances, i.e (David Cameron offering peerages to those that campaigned to vote against leaving the undemocratic EU). Leftwing privilege.
English
1
0
1
21
Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens@ClarkeMicah·
.@emilesutalun2. A seat in a legislative chamber is not a government job. So-called democratic election fills such chambers with carefully-selected party loyalists. Inheritance fills them with individuals who owe nothing to the current power-elite.
Anja/Áine 🇪🇺🇮🇪🇩🇪@emiliesutalun2

@AdamPollock Genuine question, from a non 🇬🇧 citizen. I’d like to understand your take. Why is this a bad thing? Shouldn’t the people in the lords earn their place? Just because it has been that way for so long, doesn’t automatically mean it’s right? Would really like to understand.

English
4
2
32
4.7K
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@JohnBlackt548 @ClarkeMicah My history is rusty, but I'm pretty sure most acquired wealth and title by violence for their sovereign, or service to their party, or capitalist accumulation. All with something to lose and so with reason to preserve the system that protects their privilege.
English
1
0
0
25
John Blackthorne
John Blackthorne@JohnBlackt548·
@ea_maclean @ClarkeMicah The hereditary system didn't owe any allegiance or fealty to any past party, because they weren't there because of them. Surely that's more preferable than potentially owing quid pro quos for being put there by any particular party or politician.
English
1
0
1
36
John Blackthorne
John Blackthorne@JohnBlackt548·
@ea_maclean @ClarkeMicah No, it worked better for the country. Human nature is inherently flawed, and therefore so are even the best systems. Could the hereditary system have functioned better than it did? Most likely. That doesn't mean it should have been abolished. And we all know the real reason why.
English
1
0
0
33
John Blackthorne
John Blackthorne@JohnBlackt548·
@ea_maclean @ClarkeMicah No system devised can ever be perfect, but I think it's safe to say the hereditary system worked better than the current one.
English
1
0
1
39
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@ClarkeMicah "Intellectual": a person of superior powers of intellect, well-educated, engaged in serious study, thought or reflection. The main definition in the OED according to AI (there are another nine, apparently).
English
0
0
0
29
Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens@ClarkeMicah·
.@ea_maclean. I do not understand this. Perhaps, if I were an intellectual, I would. Then again, perhaps nobody could.
EA Maclean@ea_maclean

@ClarkeMicah @mpfchairman Absolutely right. You didn't imply a dichotomy. You stated it. You acknowledge as much by asking why he thinks it false (which does imply you think it true). The dichotomy is very obviously false, so very obviously ill-thought-through. Denying it is not the route to truth.

English
6
0
9
2.7K
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@ClarkeMicah Why advocate the death penalty as deterrent when you consider it more humane than inflicting life imprisonment?
English
0
0
0
25
Peter Hitchens
Peter Hitchens@ClarkeMicah·
2/2 .Nigelgrogan. The purpose of executing the heinous murderer is, above all, to deter murder and the actions which lead to it. That is a more urgent purpose than concern about the feelings of the volunteer executioner.
nigelgrogan@nigelgrogan

@ClarkeMicah those engaged with military action should not kill unnecessarily and should prefer the surrender of the enemy. Might a prisoner on death row also be spared if it is to spare the harm done to the executioner?

English
11
1
16
3.2K
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@ClarkeMicah 5. ... you should try to answer it. You urged him to seek the route to truth. I urge you to do likewise.
English
0
0
1
34
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@ClarkeMicah 4. Any which way, Mr Prior is right. Your attempt to claim you said no such thing fails. In addition, he called it a false dichotomy. He explains why. If he is right about this, then he is also right that it was ill-thought-through. Rather than trying to evade the criticism...
English
0
0
0
31
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@ClarkeMicah 3. If "imply" is colloquial, then he has misused it: as he himself has said, you stated it explicitly. If "imply" is used pedantically as a term in logic, then his use is just fine: "if a dichotomy is a binary choice, then 'dichotomy' implies a binary choice".
English
0
0
0
31
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@ClarkeMicah 2. So, you stated a dichotomy, a binary choice. He said it's a dichotomy. You agreed it's a dichotomy (in asking why it's false). You then, because he said it "implies" a binary choice, felt able to claim "imply" is intended to "muddy the waters" and you said no such thing.
English
0
0
0
30
EA Maclean
EA Maclean@ea_maclean·
@ClarkeMicah "You (Mr Prior) say I 'imply' a binary choice... such words, used to muddy the waters, actually mean 'I do not say'." He actually said "what a poorly thought-through false dichotomy". In his reply to you he added "the dichotomy is false because the post implies a binary choice".
English
0
0
0
34

Keşfet

@ClarkeMicah @WalkerMarcus @AndrewT84537063 @eva_evato @thanksalot_sir @LeninLenout @JohnBlackt548 @elonmusk