Matthew Shepard not murdered for being gay, new book claims

Laudable thought, but barring omniscience, who's to say what "truth" is?

"You don't deserve to live. I have the right to end you."

I think the language is unfortunate. Adding "hate crime" to the charges is an attempt to un-mitigate the legalistic mitigations that result in puny sentences with time off for good behavior. But the term itself offends drama queens like Muad and UA, so it clouds the issue.

That's how one feels about a fly one is swatting, or an ant one is stepping on.
Does one "hate", the fly/ant?

Does my cat "hate", the moths he snatches out of the air and stuffs in his mouth?

Do you consider the fly your equal? Does your cat make a conscious decision, or is he acting on instinct?

YES.

No.
And, probably 50/50.

So, do you really think every murder has emotion involved?

There's never been a cold-blooded killing?

A sociopath can kill a human as easily as a fly. The general consensus seems to be that they're wired differently and can't feel anything. There's an area medical science ought to be concentrating on. Is it a gene sequence, a neurological glitch? MRIs show differences, but what causes them?

And true sociopaths are not nearly as common as Criminal Minds would have us believe.

"Normal", people can be brought to that point fairly easily.

The Milgram experiment.

Key words being "brought to"...by sociopathic authority figures who assure them that "On my authority, it's okay." Q.v. concentration camps.

You really think that's the only set of circumstances?

It's the one you mentioned.

The experiment merely points that normal people can indeed be cold-blooded dispassionate killers.

That's enough in itself to counter the notion that "it's only sociopaths".

I didn't say "only" sociopaths. And I'd argue you'd have to examine the life of an individual concentration camp guard to determine whether or not he was dispassionate. Most were drunks, many committed suicide, the rest had plenty of rationalizations for their behavior (the classic "just following orders") that may or may not have helped them sleep at night. Maybe there's a bit of the sociopath in all of us, waiting to be triggered by an authority figure assuring us it's all right.

Or then we get to Eli Wiesel's famous quote that got somebody here bent out of shape last week: "The opposite of love is not hate but indifference."

That's where the concept of "depraved indifference" comes in. Were that used in place of "hate crime" - and with the same penalty in terms of sentencing - there might be fewer people about the term.

Milgram doesn't actually establish this.

Anyone ever read "A Simple Plan" or seen the considerably milder movie version?

It does present a more than plausible scenario for a basically good and decent man becoming a mass murderer (he kills at least 7 people) in short order.

How do you figure?

When it's out of greed (say in the course of a robbery) springs to mind.

A hired hit.

Something supposedly done for the "greater good"

A cheating spouse trying to get rid of an unwanted spouse and unwilling to use divorce (which, u guess, is a variation on "greed")

I'm sure there are other examples.

I'm not a huge fan of hate crime legislation because the lines can be ambiguous, but I don't have trouble conceiving of non-hate based killings.

On the other hand - while I fully agree that murder is murder, no matter the motives, i respect the argument that there's a sort of terroristic aspect of a bias-based killing that goes beyond the actual death of the individual. I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to charge the murder itself as a regular homicide, and then add another charge which amounts to "making a terroristic threat" or some such rather than send the message that some deaths are worse than others.

A very idealistic notion, but you will never live to see the day. All of human history testifies to the impossibility of it.

which is a standard feature of human behavior and always has been. It starts when you are a small child and your parents manipulate your behavior with lies every single day.

Employers manipulate their crew with lies, spouses manipulate each other with lies, even when they don't realize it.

OBVIOUSLY power structures manipulate the powerless with lies, whether it be religion or government or industry.

don't get me started on "education"

Such is the world you live in.

Okay? Maybe not. but that's like saying tornadoes are not okay.

Murder isn't okay, and it isn't going away, but we punish it anyway whenever we can.

Lies must be dismantled, and the liars exposed, humiliated, destroyed whenever possible.

It doesn't place study participants in the position of killing the fake participant. They believe only that they are hurting them. Proves sadism through suggestion, but not sociopathy.

Pretty sure they were told setting 10 could be lethal.

Nope. They were in fact told that it was safe. The stimulus for stopping was the sounds of pain and anguish coming from the other room.

You read moron. Moron.

You're sort of right, they were told the other person had a heart condition, and this was a part of their screaming, until the screaming stopped.

So, yeah, they kinda knew, even though it wasn't an explicit "rule", as such.

The heart problem was disclosed by the faux participant, prior to the firsst shock. Some might choose not to believe a self-serving declaration, especially when the "scientist" has assured them it is safe. Each time a participant expressed a desire not to administer the shock, he was again given the message that harm was temporary or otherwise mitigated. Again, probably demonstrates that many have sadistic tendencies, easily uncovered. It does not demonstrate that large numbers would easily commit murder by suggestion.

I never said large numbers, you injected that in there.

No, you did when you brought up the test. The reason it is considered to say anything about the power of suggestion is because large numbers go the distance to the highest shock setting, something like two thirds. If small numbers, say 10%, the explanation would be that one in ten people are fuckos to begin with.

Let's go back to the beginning....

I think that's answered to the point of being a beaten horse by now.

Yes, and we can also agree that Milgram establishes nothing in this regard.