It depends on the order. If the order is unlawful, then nothing happens to a soldier – and he may even be commended.
If it is an unlawful order, pretty much nothing. However, you can be punished for following an unlawful order.
Correct, to the degree that they are capable of controlling how I think.
Who might they be, and aren’t they concerned about the hypocrisy of using their might to insist that might doesn’t make right?
Because I know of no law in this country compelling me to think or behave in that way, but I do know of one that gives me the freedom to disagree with the government.
For example:
Indeed. As I noted, his position isn’t even internally consistent, and thus doesn’t even rise to the level of being objectively wrong.
The person insisting that those people should be given a free license to conceal their activities from the police.
I.e. you.
Where in that narrative was the Marine given an unlawful order?
My position is 100% consistent. You fail to appreciate the nuance.
I didn’t “give” anybody anything. The laws of mathematics did that. By your own argument, you should therefore accept it as right.
Add that one to your list of self-contradictions. (I have a feeling that I’m going to need to reduce this one to an acronym as well. Should it be “AtOtYLoSC” or just “AtOtYLoS” or perhaps “AtOtYLoS-C”?)
Smapti, you are the most morally bankrupt person I have ever met.
The laws of mathematics do not grant anyone the right to do anything.
I’ll grant that your position that rape victims and molested children should not resist their rapists and molesters if they are their masters or policemen is consistent with your position that soldiers should not disobey the orders to take part in atrocities like the Holocaust.
Morality is something man invented so that he could feel better about the things that he knows he shouldn’t feel bad about but does.
The laws of mathematics confer the power. By your own argument, the power confers the right. PTtKUWtC.
Except that it turns out that, oops, the same argument “proves” that the prisoners brought to Nuremberg should have simply confessed and made no attempt (even verbally) to evade whatever punishment the victors saw fit to impose upon them.
You seem to be conflating laws with laws.
It would have made the postwar trials a lot smoother, do you not agree?
Arguing about whether A is A? Well, OK, even an Objectivist screed would be an improvement…
Words can have more than one meaning. A law of science is not a law in the same sense that a legal law is a law. PTtKUWtC.
Is this why you think rape victims should not resist their rapists, if the rapist is their master or a policeman? Because it would make it go “a lot smoother”?