In short... the Dallon family is extremely messed up and, in this continuity, Amy is harming people with little provocation, too.
Is she harming them? They are demonstrably happier and better off than in canon. They are not suffering, nor is she deriving sadistic glee from manipulating them.
Let's posit a powers-vs-normality argument. Say, there is a five pound brick on the ground. One person grabs it, climbs a ladder, and places it on top of a wall. The brick is on the wall.
Another person sees the brick there, grabs it, and flies up to the top of the wall and puts it there. Brick, wall.
A third person teleports the brick up there. Brick is still on wall.
An independent observer, arriving after all this has happened, has no way of knowing how those bricks got there. For all he knows, they were all carried up, or all teleported. The end result is identical.
Now, suppose Mrs Yamada visits the Dallon household, having been apprised of the facts. Suppose she talks to Carol, and over days or weeks or months, gradually convinces her that Amy
isn't a monster, and that she really does deserve to be treated as her daughter. And Carol has an epiphany, and really does come around, and treats Amy as she should have from the beginning.
An independent observer would not be able to tell the difference between that and Amy going
It's silly to hate me.
Only, of course, with Amy, it's a lot easier, and Carol's a lot less likely to reject the argument through sheer delusional stubbornness.
Is clinging to a belief that harms others by its very nature more or less evil than having someone forcibly alter that belief into one that does no harm?
