Your examples weren’t a moral test, they were tests of how much an opinion is worth.
It was not an opinion itself that was tested, but individuals. Watson claimed that he held a principle that might be summarized as “truth, though the heavens may fall around me”. By his standards he failed. There have also been numerous psych studies showing that people will bow to pressure and do things they claim they would never do. That is why I do not put much weight on your claims.

that it’s better to be among those imprisoned should you find yourself in a holocaust
I’m not sure exactly what you intended to mean by this. That a person arrested for theft is morally superior than one who is not arrested at all conditioned on a holocaust occurring? What good does the imprisonment do?

You have none, bully for you.
To fully explain myself I would have to direct you to the theory of emotivism promoted by the logical positivists and Der Ego und es Eigenum by Max Stirner. There are things I like and dislike, but no fixed idea I serve.

Historically, I’ve found the stoics to be more worthy of respect than the sophists.
I am a big fan of the writings of Stoics like Marcus Aurelius, but I do not think there are any of the ancient sophists, just what their enemies said of their views. I don’t think that’s a reliable record.

They also tend to influence history more
Cite?

being that they do more than argue online seeking validation.
Why are you arguing online and what do you do offline?

I’d rather my daughter learn that honorable death is better than an unexamined life.
That reminds me of Chip Smith on Andrea Yates. Would you consider it a good thing to kill a child if their death was noble and the alternative was an unexamined life?

You don’t have the air of someone who enjoys discussion because it gives an opportunity to learn or share
I think “the air” is easily detectable over the internet. I honestly consider myself just that kind of person.

but rather to dominate others
Have I dominated others anywhere? And half-cocked assumptions don’t strike me as an effective method of domination.

about who they are and what they value
I question so we can learn, in the mold of Socrates. I don’t expect that all questioning will be found comforting, but I think the learning and sharing is more important than comfort.

You place no intrinsic value on the attempt to save Ann Frank, because it was unsuccessful.
Correct, I am not a deontologist but a consequentialist. Of course, one should distinguish between post-facto results and expected results in evaluating decisions, but I am evaluating the event itself rather than the decisions that led to it.

A moral code means nothing without tests. Your examples weren’t a moral test, they were tests of how much an opinion is worth. Not much. I don’t hold my opinions very high on things in need of defending, either. They are what they are, and they’re subject to change. My moral code, (that it’s better to be among those imprisoned should you find yourself in a holocaust,) is not up for debate.

You have none, bully for you. Which is much of the reason I don’t hold you in high esteem. Historically, I’ve found the stoics to be more worthy of respect than the sophists. They also tend to influence history more, being that they do more than argue online seeking validation.

You’re right though, I can’t say I would have the courage to risk my own family for the sake of another, because I haven’t been in that position. But death is inevitable. The life you leave behind is more important to me. I’d rather my daughter learn that honorable death is better than an unexamined life.

I have no illusions that I’m going to change your mind. You don’t have the air of someone who enjoys discussion because it gives an opportunity to learn or share, but rather to dominate others with half-cocked assumptions about who they are and what they value. You place no intrinsic value on the attempt to save Ann Frank, because it was unsuccessful.

I disagree, and pray I never have the opportunity to prove it.

Here’s to those who try.