Why the time turner stinks

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 79775

Deidre asked:
> Or better yet, why hasn't Dumbledore or someone else gone back and 
killed
> pre-powerful Voldemort?

(Unlike Talisman, I'm jumping right in :-D.)

It depends on if you believe a time-turner can change time or not.
If you can not physically change time not matter how many times you 
go back, then that explains why no-one has done away with Voldemort. 
On the other hand, if you *can* change time until your heart's 
content, then we have no series of books :-)

So, there's the idea that even if you go back in time you are still 
trapped by the events that have already occurred. You go back in time 
with the objective to kill Voldemort. Killing him would mean that he 
never got powerful, so you never had any need to stop him, so you 
never would have gone back in time in the first place. But then, if 
you didn't go back in time, then Voldemort would have never been 
killed, so he *would* have lived to become powerful. Which brings us 
back to the start. In other words, it means that because Voldemort 
lives, it's proof that no-one *can* go back in time and kill him- 
that is: you can't change time at all; the past is fixed.

Alternatively, if you *do* believe that time can be changed, then 
Voldemort must be protected by other means- we know that the 
reflected AK didn't kill him. In fact, if Dumbledore's recount of his 
life is accurate, directly after school he started working on 
becoming immortal. That leaves us with the only option of killing him 
whilst he's still a child. If you ask me, killing an innocent child 
(he must have been innocent at one point) is still awful, no matter 
how many people they may or may not grow up to murder.

~<(Laurasia)>~
Who is dreadfully sorry for accidentally posting her last message 
twice. I will apologise profusely and continually because that's how 
bad I feel. :-(