Why should you be allowed to edit recorded history so that you have always thought what you think now?
Because it is a reality of human psychology that people will status-penalize your current self for the mistakes of your past self, even if they (say that they) try not to.
Also, it would be undesirable to have a bunch of new comments of the form "I've changed my mind about that semicolon". Such comments might even be downvoted, resulting in a no-win situation for the commenter.
And you're not actually editing recorded history. People know the rules, and know that comments can be edited, so expect that people will try if possible to make all their comments make their current self look good.
And if someone quotes your comment before you edit it, you still suffer all the consequences.
It would furthermore be unfair to freeze edits without also freezing voting.
Why should those issues be linked?
To prevent a situation where someone is hemorrhaging karma and unable to do anything about it.
In general, this a case of "leave well enough alone", or, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Editing comments -- like any feature -- has potential for abuse, but it's not currently causing any problems severe enough to outweigh the benefits.
Why should you be allowed to edit recorded history so that you have always thought what you think now?
Because it is a reality of human psychology that people will status-penalize your current self for the mistakes of your past self, even if they (say that they) try not to.
That may be a general problem, but on Less Wrong, what I typically observe is that people get upvoted for accepting counter arguments and changing their mind and for apologizing for rude behavior. Sometimes downvotes are even removed from the rude comment that required the apology.
...
At 2011-04-08 LW user account deletion is broken. We (Trike) will fix it… but how should it work?
Options: