No they're not. They're different psychological disorders, with sociopathy being like an offshoot of psychopathy. They share many of the same traits, generally, but there are a couple of key differences; like a sociopath will likely try to rationalise his wrong doings while a psychopath would not take responsibility for his actions at all.

EDIT: Apparently there is some debate about whether they should be classified as the same disorder, but from what I gather the standard test for these things classifies psychopathy and sociopathy as different syndromes.

 

Back on the topic?

Mostly I'd agree with what everyone says here, that is Dark Magic, needing negative/hateful emotions, don't make you dark, rather you have to be at least a bit hateful to cast them.
But, thats just rehashing what has already been said....sorry.

@Taure: Umm...I don't think that the Killing curse is painless. In GoF, Voldemort told his followers that it fucking hurt, at least from what I remember. I may be wrong, and as I don't have the damn books with me, I can't check.

 

To normal humans it is painless, but to a pseudo/quasi immortal dark lord? How would you feel if somebody came and ripped your balls off? The Killing Curse just "kills", no feeling attached, now your soul being ripped from your physical body? Thats gotta hurt!

 

Voldemort describes it as "pain beyond pain" whereas Sirius describes 'dying' as "Quicker and easier than falling asleep". Though I suppose that counts for the killing curse too.

 

But Sirius died because he fell through the Veil, not by the Killing curse. I think the two ways of dying have gotta be different, no?
Like being stabbed to death, or dying due to sudden shock?

 

1. I never said anything about the Killing curse being painless, I merely said it was likely to just make you dead.

2. That said, I do think that the Killing Curse is painless. Voldemort is a special case, because he did not die: he was ripped from his body. In all other instances of the Killing Curse we have seen (in which it is actually successful), death has been instant (giving the victim no time to feel pain), and victims are not said to look as if they are in pain: terror or shock is usually the expression which is fixed upon their faces.

 

OK that I can agree with and that is what I used to think too, but there can never be any sure proof in this matter.
It may be that the killing curse might be painful but so quick that the pained expression never has time to materialize on the face?
Just a thought, but as I said, I don't have any verse or sentence from the canon to support or disprove this theory.

 

Harry was asking in relation to the killing curse.

Sirius says it'll be easy and quick and Remus agrees with him and says that Voldemort will want to make it quick and Harry, though he's hit with the killing curse, shows no pain. Though you might argue that he never actually died, though Dumbledore makes it very clear that he could have, should he have wanted to.

 

Oh, I didn't know that.
I haven't read DH entirely yet, just up to the marriage...though I've had it for almost an year and normally it takes me barely a week to finish a book of that size...

 

Oh. Whoops.

FYI, Spoilers in that post ^_^

 

From the very first chapter of the series: Dumbledore and McGonagall on Voldemort

 

Spoilers enembee?, though you had no idea that he hadnt finished the book...

 

It was a joke

 

I think the whole 'Dark Arts controlling you' thing that the characters constantly warn Harry about, is just an urban legend, kind of like how we shouldn't go swimming after eating or how masturbation can lead to blindness. (Yeah I've heard of that before) There really doesn't seem to be much proof supporting that assertion but it's been drilled into their heads.

 

How about this...

Dark Arts are dark, because they appeal to the baser emotions, especially lust, greed and hate. Extensive use of them makes it easier to 'give in' to those emotions, to the point where the emotions are in control.

 

Then what are "Light Arts"? "Higher" emotions that take control? Like love, honor, trust, etc? They're just as "base" as lust or greed – we felt them long before society, 'intelligence', or self-control came around.

It's easier just to say that magic is sentient and not a force – calling forth different spells has different effects because the 'being' called forth is natured differently. Or some such complicated jargon.

A spell is only perceived 'dark' because it has irreparable and unwanted effects upon the caster or recipient.

 

In before Demons In The Night.

 

Actually I threw up once after getting in the pool so I kind of believe the first one... XD

But yeah that's not totally true.

 

From JKR's latest speech (at Harvard university):

"Of course, this is a power, like my brand of fictional magic, that is morally neutral. One might use such an ability to manipulate, or control, just as much as to understand or sympathise."

Interesting.

http://harvardmagazine.com/go/jkrowling.html

 

With all due respect, Taure, I care about what JKR says as much as I care about the paper I use to wipe my arse.

When people argue about what sets the Unforgivables above the rest of the Dark Arts, I would say that while using any of the former on a human will guarantee one a stay in Azkaban, it doesn't mean that using the latter and causing harm to another won't land one in a similar position.

If a rogue wizard goes berserk and casts, say, Sectumsempra or Confringo on a bystander, I can guarantee that the Aurors will ship him off to Azkaban in no time.

On the other hand, you can also argue that they deserve their 'Unforgivables' tag for being the most potent torture curse, the only spell that can dominate another, given sufficient proficiency and willpower, and of course, the only spell that can guarantee death when struck (barring Harry) while also being unblockable to any non-physical shield.