They might stay your friends, but would they be the same people? I think that’s the important angle.
Our struggles define us. For example, for me, did it suck to be fuck-ass poor throughout university, often surviving on rice only for weeks, depending on friends? Sure. Would I trade it for a comfortable study life? Hell no. That struggle helped me grow, as much as it sucked.
As an external observer, sure, seeing your friends scarred sucks, but who gave you the right to remove that trauma, and change who they are?
Acting in the moment to save someone, providing them support, is very, very different to going back in time to undo things that have already happened.
First of all, you already know that the person in question survives the trauma you’re trying to undo. It’s already part of their personality. Changing the past in this case doesn’t save their lives but potentially changes their personality in a major way.
Ok, here’s a question. You see someone in a lake drowning. You know 100% they will survive. You are fully capable of jumping in and helping them out. You know that person survives but for the rest of their lives they never go into the water again.
Why are you trying to draw a false equivalence between your scenario, and mine? They’re vastly different in outcome and justifiability, so why are you trying to strongarm one into the other?
They might stay your friends, but would they be the same people? I think that’s the important angle.
Our struggles define us. For example, for me, did it suck to be fuck-ass poor throughout university, often surviving on rice only for weeks, depending on friends? Sure. Would I trade it for a comfortable study life? Hell no. That struggle helped me grow, as much as it sucked.
As an external observer, sure, seeing your friends scarred sucks, but who gave you the right to remove that trauma, and change who they are?
You assume the trauma is a net positive. I know trauma to be a net negative.
If I see someone in a lake drowning, what gives me the right to swim out and save them? They might survive it doesnt mean I couldn’t have helped.
Acting in the moment to save someone, providing them support, is very, very different to going back in time to undo things that have already happened.
First of all, you already know that the person in question survives the trauma you’re trying to undo. It’s already part of their personality. Changing the past in this case doesn’t save their lives but potentially changes their personality in a major way.
Ok, here’s a question. You see someone in a lake drowning. You know 100% they will survive. You are fully capable of jumping in and helping them out. You know that person survives but for the rest of their lives they never go into the water again.
Do you help them?
Why are you trying to draw a false equivalence between your scenario, and mine? They’re vastly different in outcome and justifiability, so why are you trying to strongarm one into the other?