I know the feel bro ;_; pic unrelated.

thank you! I needed that picture

You're both filthy twats

Explain how.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do see your point. I feel like our opinions are really similar with minor details that make a big difference...

I guess that's where I disagree.
I think that if they hadn't chosen to go back in time, the Hermione that threw the rock would disappear.

They didn't have a choice to go back in time, though. That fact was decided the moment there were two Harrys and two Hermiones on the school grounds during Buckbeak's execution. The timeline's fixed. If someone goes back in the past to do something, then that thing has already happened.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do see your point. I feel like our opinions are really similar with minor details that make a big difference...

I don't understand. Them going into the past would change the future... They had the choice to.

They didn't have a choise. The fact that they'd been in the past (such as when Hermione threw the rock to get Harry's attention to the window) forced them to go back in time. Nothing could have ever changed that. The past and future weren't changed.

I guess that's where I disagree.
I think that if they hadn't chosen to go back in time, the Hermione that threw the rock would disappear.

They didn't have a choice to go back in time, though. That fact was decided the moment there were two Harrys and two Hermiones on the school grounds during Buckbeak's execution. The timeline's fixed. If someone goes back in the past to do something, then that thing has already happened.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do see your point. I feel like our opinions are really similar with minor details that make a big difference...

I think both of us are right. We're going around in circles.
If they hadn't gone back in time, then the future wouldn't be changed. Timeturners do change the future.

But they had to go back in time, because they were already in the past. There was no stopping them going into the past, that was already set

I don't understand. Them going into the past would change the future... They had the choice to.

They didn't have a choise. The fact that they'd been in the past (such as when Hermione threw the rock to get Harry's attention to the window) forced them to go back in time. Nothing could have ever changed that. The past and future weren't changed.

I guess that's where I disagree.
I think that if they hadn't chosen to go back in time, the Hermione that threw the rock would disappear.

They didn't have a choice to go back in time, though. That fact was decided the moment there were two Harrys and two Hermiones on the school grounds during Buckbeak's execution. The timeline's fixed. If someone goes back in the past to do something, then that thing has already happened.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do see your point. I feel like our opinions are really similar with minor details that make a big difference...

They did change the future. Just like SIrius was going to have his soul taken by the dementors and they saved him.
If you can't change the future, what's the point of a time turner?

Sirius was saved because they'd already saved him. It's a paradox in that sirius was saved in the future because Harry and Hermione had gone into the past to specifically save him. That's the only thing that could ever happen, because it already had happened in the future.

I think both of us are right. We're going around in circles.
If they hadn't gone back in time, then the future wouldn't be changed. Timeturners do change the future.

But they had to go back in time, because they were already in the past. There was no stopping them going into the past, that was already set

I don't understand. Them going into the past would change the future... They had the choice to.

They didn't have a choise. The fact that they'd been in the past (such as when Hermione threw the rock to get Harry's attention to the window) forced them to go back in time. Nothing could have ever changed that. The past and future weren't changed.

I guess that's where I disagree.
I think that if they hadn't chosen to go back in time, the Hermione that threw the rock would disappear.

They didn't have a choice to go back in time, though. That fact was decided the moment there were two Harrys and two Hermiones on the school grounds during Buckbeak's execution. The timeline's fixed. If someone goes back in the past to do something, then that thing has already happened.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do see your point. I feel like our opinions are really similar with minor details that make a big difference...

Buckbeak was dead, and they went back in time to free him before he died... That's why this picture happened.

They couldn't see Buckbeak being killed, but they knew he was going to be killed and assumed that the executioner cutting the pumpkin was Buckbeak being killed.

It is impossible for them to change the past with a Time Turner, because the past had already been set by their future selves.

They did change the future. Just like SIrius was going to have his soul taken by the dementors and they saved him.
If you can't change the future, what's the point of a time turner?

Sirius was saved because they'd already saved him. It's a paradox in that sirius was saved in the future because Harry and Hermione had gone into the past to specifically save him. That's the only thing that could ever happen, because it already had happened in the future.

I think both of us are right. We're going around in circles.
If they hadn't gone back in time, then the future wouldn't be changed. Timeturners do change the future.

But they had to go back in time, because they were already in the past. There was no stopping them going into the past, that was already set

I don't understand. Them going into the past would change the future... They had the choice to.

They didn't have a choise. The fact that they'd been in the past (such as when Hermione threw the rock to get Harry's attention to the window) forced them to go back in time. Nothing could have ever changed that. The past and future weren't changed.

I guess that's where I disagree.
I think that if they hadn't chosen to go back in time, the Hermione that threw the rock would disappear.

They didn't have a choice to go back in time, though. That fact was decided the moment there were two Harrys and two Hermiones on the school grounds during Buckbeak's execution. The timeline's fixed. If someone goes back in the past to do something, then that thing has already happened.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do see your point. I feel like our opinions are really similar with minor details that make a big difference...

But originally, if they hadn't used the timeturner, they killed Buckbeak.

No they didn't. That's not how Time Turners work. They were fufilling what had already happened, which was Buckbeak escaping. Buckbeak wasn't dead once.

Buckbeak was dead, and they went back in time to free him before he died... That's why this picture happened.

They couldn't see Buckbeak being killed, but they knew he was going to be killed and assumed that the executioner cutting the pumpkin was Buckbeak being killed.

It is impossible for them to change the past with a Time Turner, because the past had already been set by their future selves.

They did change the future. Just like SIrius was going to have his soul taken by the dementors and they saved him.
If you can't change the future, what's the point of a time turner?

Sirius was saved because they'd already saved him. It's a paradox in that sirius was saved in the future because Harry and Hermione had gone into the past to specifically save him. That's the only thing that could ever happen, because it already had happened in the future.

I think both of us are right. We're going around in circles.
If they hadn't gone back in time, then the future wouldn't be changed. Timeturners do change the future.

But they had to go back in time, because they were already in the past. There was no stopping them going into the past, that was already set

I don't understand. Them going into the past would change the future... They had the choice to.

They didn't have a choise. The fact that they'd been in the past (such as when Hermione threw the rock to get Harry's attention to the window) forced them to go back in time. Nothing could have ever changed that. The past and future weren't changed.

I guess that's where I disagree.
I think that if they hadn't chosen to go back in time, the Hermione that threw the rock would disappear.

They didn't have a choice to go back in time, though. That fact was decided the moment there were two Harrys and two Hermiones on the school grounds during Buckbeak's execution. The timeline's fixed. If someone goes back in the past to do something, then that thing has already happened.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do see your point. I feel like our opinions are really similar with minor details that make a big difference...

Buckbeak never was dead. But in the Prisoner of Azkaban Buckbeak would have been killed if they had not used the time turner. They sent someone to execute him if you don't remember. That's the whole reason they used the time turner.

That's his point. Buckbeak never died, he was saved by Harry/Hermione going back in time.
Harry's parents did die, and they wouldn't be able to change that...

I know what his point was. But he said that the pic implied that Buckbeak had already died when they went back in time to save him, and that's not what the pic was implying. And I'm pretty sure if the time turner could've went back that far in time they could've saved Harry's parents, you know, by stopping Voldemort before he got too powerful and all....

Also, implying the timeturner is a spell and not an item.
But wtf, they beheaded buckbeak >_>

They didn't, the thing the executioner hit with the axe is a fence/a pumpkin (depending on whether you go by the book or the film)

But originally, if they hadn't used the timeturner, they killed Buckbeak.

No they didn't. That's not how Time Turners work. They were fufilling what had already happened, which was Buckbeak escaping. Buckbeak wasn't dead once.

Buckbeak was dead, and they went back in time to free him before he died... That's why this picture happened.

They couldn't see Buckbeak being killed, but they knew he was going to be killed and assumed that the executioner cutting the pumpkin was Buckbeak being killed.

It is impossible for them to change the past with a Time Turner, because the past had already been set by their future selves.

They did change the future. Just like SIrius was going to have his soul taken by the dementors and they saved him.
If you can't change the future, what's the point of a time turner?

Sirius was saved because they'd already saved him. It's a paradox in that sirius was saved in the future because Harry and Hermione had gone into the past to specifically save him. That's the only thing that could ever happen, because it already had happened in the future.

I think both of us are right. We're going around in circles.
If they hadn't gone back in time, then the future wouldn't be changed. Timeturners do change the future.

But they had to go back in time, because they were already in the past. There was no stopping them going into the past, that was already set

I don't understand. Them going into the past would change the future... They had the choice to.

They didn't have a choise. The fact that they'd been in the past (such as when Hermione threw the rock to get Harry's attention to the window) forced them to go back in time. Nothing could have ever changed that. The past and future weren't changed.

I guess that's where I disagree.
I think that if they hadn't chosen to go back in time, the Hermione that threw the rock would disappear.

They didn't have a choice to go back in time, though. That fact was decided the moment there were two Harrys and two Hermiones on the school grounds during Buckbeak's execution. The timeline's fixed. If someone goes back in the past to do something, then that thing has already happened.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do see your point. I feel like our opinions are really similar with minor details that make a big difference...

Nowhere does it say that Buckbeak is dead

"No spell can reawaken the dead...except for the timeturner. We'll use that to save Buckbeak."

Implying that Buckbeak was dead and the timeturner saved him from that death

Buckbeak never was dead. But in the Prisoner of Azkaban Buckbeak would have been killed if they had not used the time turner. They sent someone to execute him if you don't remember. That's the whole reason they used the time turner.

That's his point. Buckbeak never died, he was saved by Harry/Hermione going back in time.
Harry's parents did die, and they wouldn't be able to change that...

I know what his point was. But he said that the pic implied that Buckbeak had already died when they went back in time to save him, and that's not what the pic was implying. And I'm pretty sure if the time turner could've went back that far in time they could've saved Harry's parents, you know, by stopping Voldemort before he got too powerful and all....

Also, implying the timeturner is a spell and not an item.
But wtf, they beheaded buckbeak >_>

They didn't, the thing the executioner hit with the axe is a fence/a pumpkin (depending on whether you go by the book or the film)

But originally, if they hadn't used the timeturner, they killed Buckbeak.

No they didn't. That's not how Time Turners work. They were fufilling what had already happened, which was Buckbeak escaping. Buckbeak wasn't dead once.

Buckbeak was dead, and they went back in time to free him before he died... That's why this picture happened.

They couldn't see Buckbeak being killed, but they knew he was going to be killed and assumed that the executioner cutting the pumpkin was Buckbeak being killed.

It is impossible for them to change the past with a Time Turner, because the past had already been set by their future selves.

They did change the future. Just like SIrius was going to have his soul taken by the dementors and they saved him.
If you can't change the future, what's the point of a time turner?

Sirius was saved because they'd already saved him. It's a paradox in that sirius was saved in the future because Harry and Hermione had gone into the past to specifically save him. That's the only thing that could ever happen, because it already had happened in the future.

I think both of us are right. We're going around in circles.
If they hadn't gone back in time, then the future wouldn't be changed. Timeturners do change the future.

But they had to go back in time, because they were already in the past. There was no stopping them going into the past, that was already set

I don't understand. Them going into the past would change the future... They had the choice to.

They didn't have a choise. The fact that they'd been in the past (such as when Hermione threw the rock to get Harry's attention to the window) forced them to go back in time. Nothing could have ever changed that. The past and future weren't changed.

I guess that's where I disagree.
I think that if they hadn't chosen to go back in time, the Hermione that threw the rock would disappear.

They didn't have a choice to go back in time, though. That fact was decided the moment there were two Harrys and two Hermiones on the school grounds during Buckbeak's execution. The timeline's fixed. If someone goes back in the past to do something, then that thing has already happened.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do see your point. I feel like our opinions are really similar with minor details that make a big difference...