I wonder if your friend left out the true defining characteristic of a sociopath and that is the absolute and utter inability to feel not only love but sympathy and empathy.
It's obvious, to me at least, that Lucius cares about Draco. Else he wouldn't give a tinker's cuss about his grades and he certainly wouldn't have any problems in exposing Draco to the Death Eaters. As for Narcissa, the only argument we've ever seen or heard of them having is where Draco will go to school. If Lucius truly didn't care, he would have pressed for his own decision rather than giving in to Narcissa.
We see how Lucius treated Ginny Weasley, but there's also a good idea that he had no idea that it would put her life in danger. He wasn't aware the book was a horcrux and that's what got him into trouble with Voldemort. It's more likely that he thought the diary would open the chamber and cause a great deal of trouble for the Weasley family since Ginny seemed to be at the bottom of it.
In any case, the Weasley family is his enemy. He will deploy less than sterling tactics for his enemies.
What you're describing concerning sociopathy sounds more like ambition than a complete lack of feeling anything towards anyone. Sociopathy is more geared toward lack of things, such as emotions that any human being should have, including guilt. And I'm pretty sure Lucius is feeling that right now concerning his family.
While there isn't enough evidence for Bagman, I think it's safer to give him the benefit of the doubt. Right now, we know Riddle is a definite sociopath not through the evidence we're not given, but through the evidence that we are given.
I mean, I can also say that Lucius and Bagman are drag-queens at night with MPD who generally enjoy a great shag in the Ministry fountain based on the fact that we haven't seen them do it. One can't prove a negative.
So yes, I think the definition of sociopath is definitely thrown around a great deal. And if one were to shove out such a title onto characters, it would only serve to hide the true horrors of what they've done.
I don't think the term of monster should apply to a sociopath. They have a very, very real mental disorder. Rather, the term ought to apply to those people who know very well the difference between right and wrong and who enjoy the act of torturing and killing and who do nothing to stop it while showing absolutely no redeeming characteristics. Voldemort can't help what he is, but this doesn't make him faultless. But nor does it really make him a monster.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 03:43 am (UTC)It's obvious, to me at least, that Lucius cares about Draco. Else he wouldn't give a tinker's cuss about his grades and he certainly wouldn't have any problems in exposing Draco to the Death Eaters. As for Narcissa, the only argument we've ever seen or heard of them having is where Draco will go to school. If Lucius truly didn't care, he would have pressed for his own decision rather than giving in to Narcissa.
We see how Lucius treated Ginny Weasley, but there's also a good idea that he had no idea that it would put her life in danger. He wasn't aware the book was a horcrux and that's what got him into trouble with Voldemort. It's more likely that he thought the diary would open the chamber and cause a great deal of trouble for the Weasley family since Ginny seemed to be at the bottom of it.
In any case, the Weasley family is his enemy. He will deploy less than sterling tactics for his enemies.
What you're describing concerning sociopathy sounds more like ambition than a complete lack of feeling anything towards anyone. Sociopathy is more geared toward lack of things, such as emotions that any human being should have, including guilt. And I'm pretty sure Lucius is feeling that right now concerning his family.
While there isn't enough evidence for Bagman, I think it's safer to give him the benefit of the doubt. Right now, we know Riddle is a definite sociopath not through the evidence we're not given, but through the evidence that we are given.
I mean, I can also say that Lucius and Bagman are drag-queens at night with MPD who generally enjoy a great shag in the Ministry fountain based on the fact that we haven't seen them do it. One can't prove a negative.
So yes, I think the definition of sociopath is definitely thrown around a great deal. And if one were to shove out such a title onto characters, it would only serve to hide the true horrors of what they've done.
I don't think the term of monster should apply to a sociopath. They have a very, very real mental disorder. Rather, the term ought to apply to those people who know very well the difference between right and wrong and who enjoy the act of torturing and killing and who do nothing to stop it while showing absolutely no redeeming characteristics. Voldemort can't help what he is, but this doesn't make him faultless. But nor does it really make him a monster.