Wdot wrote:Connie is getting her licks in to be sure, whether or not they are completely justified remains to be seen.
I think they are, and I intend to prove it. Well... for some definition of "prove", that is...
Wdot wrote:I'm not too worried about Bia, after all, Phix knocked her through The LIBRARY wall with apparently no ill results.
I think we all agree on that. So as unfair or one-sided as this fight may seem, no permanent damage is likely to occur, either through "
Good thing she can heal", or something similar.
(Warning: tvtropes will ruin your life...)
Wdot wrote:Okay, Bia is an innocent confirmed by Tina. She is apparently a little girl again maybe she remembers what she did and why she did it, but is she responsible for it now?
Yes. The things she has done have happened in her past. No time travel was involved. Her dad transformed her, not sent her back to when she was a child. He said she had a better grasp on things as a child, so he made her a child again. This involves her state, not her location in time. She still has all her memories, but is now viewing them through the filter of a young child's eye and understanding of the world around her. That is why she can say, right off the bat, "
Oooh, man, I've really messed everything up, haven't I?" Because she can see it, now. She is no longer encumbered by her old justifications for all the manipulations she did in the past. Just like kids are taught that lying is wrong, but they grow up and start telling themselves all sorts of justifications for lying: "it's for their (the hearer of the lie) own good", "not all truths are good to hear", "It's just a 'white lie'...", lying by omission, etc.) Now imagine being turned back to a state of mind where one only knows that lying is wrong, and hearing someone else lie: she will see the lie for what it is, a lie, rather than a complicated matter of justifications. So it is with Bia: she now is able to see clearly, unencumbered by all the old justifications, so she can learn her lessons from the consequences of her past actions. Her past actions have occurred, and she remembers them. She just sees them differently now ("Wow, people have been hurt by what I did"), than how she viewed them before ("It was all necessary", "a means to an end", etc.)
Wdot wrote:WOG say she really is a little girl again and not faking it. She just got knocked around for something she didn't yet do, but did when she was an adult, which she currently isn't. This "timey whimey" age changing stuff makes ethics and morals do backflips.
If we were talking "sending back in time", sure. But we're talking transformation. Different stuff. Just as when someone loses a lot of weight, it doesn't mean he just gets sent back to a time when he was skinnier, but he undergoes a transformation (albeit over a long period of time). In this case, the transformation was rapid (from the time she visited Tina, as an adult, that morning, to when she got sent to the island, as a child), but it was a transformation. She is physically and mentally a child, and views things from the point of view of a child, with the comprehension and "simplicity" of a child, but still has lived up to then as an adult and remembers the things that she did as an adult.
Going back to the weight loss analogy, one can conceive that an obese person may have, at one point, broken a chair (let's say a plastic one) because of their weight, but were too embarrassed to admit it was their fault. Instead, they blame poor manufacturing, etc. Now that they have lost the weight, the event of breaking that chair has still happened, in the past. But now, they may be willing to admit that it was, indeed, their fault, if the chair broke, and that they shouldn't have sat on it. No time travel is involved.
