"DDEckerslyke" wrote in message ...(about Jerome Bibuld's arrest):
Tell me what I'm missing. A reasonable request was made for evidence in
writing. This was not forthcoming. OP stood up for himself instead of just
doing what he was told. The response in this NG is generally: 'You must obey
without question'.

"A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective
of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as
they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority."
--Stanley Milgram (1965)

Dear Mr. Eckerslyke,

My impression is that some of the responses here have been directed not only
against what Jerome Bibuld did on that occasion, but also against what he has
written here (e.g. "Heil Dubya!") on many occasions. Nonetheless, the law
should judge--if it must--Mr. Bibuld by what he does, not by what he believes.

I thought the point of Stanley Milgram's experiments was to connect
slavish unquestioning obedience to Second World War genocide.
See also 'Hitler's Willing Executioner's'....

According to nearly all academic historians of 20th century Germany,
"Hitler's Willing Executioners" has many serious flaws, to say the least.

"Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' strongest moral imperatives
against hurting others, and, with the subjects' ears ringing with the screams
of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of
adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes
the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding
explanation."
--Stanley Milgram (1974, "The Perils of Obedience)

--Nick