Why can't we castle out of check?

Seriously? Why can't we castle out of check. It would make things so much easier.

You... actually have a point. I wonder why it's like this

You bring up a perplexing question...

It is just because the way the rules are. But I imagine when they were thinking up the rules (or altering them) they just thought that it gave the defending side too much of a break - because a vulnerable king is such a big part of the game, it would spoil things a bit of there was no way to punish that slight neglect.

Philosophically, the reason is to reward the attacker for attacking.

Since attacking makes for more interesting chess, it's not necessarily a bad idea.

I can see where your coming from, but I also think that if you could castle out of it, it would be really nice and make you have to think more while you are attacking.

Seems like it's like most sports. Most people want to watch offense more than defense. Not necessarily the truth though.

Because castling is the only king move that allows the king to move more than one square. So to allow that move (castling), the king has to be unencumbered. It's just one of many castling requirements. 

Yeah I know, I'm just wondering why it has to be one of the reqs. I can see both sides, but I think they should at least make a variant version or something that you can castle whenever.

Same reason you can't castle if you've already moved the king. It seems like, why not? Or having moved the rook, or passing through check. Because castling is such a special move, the situation has to be pristine. So a bunch of requirements make it pristine. 

I'm not tryna argue with u. I'm just saying there are times where it would be nice to be able to.

Game above could obviously never happen, just an example.

Nvr mind it doesn't want to send.

I'm sorry, I don't think some of us understand my question entirely. I know that you can't castle out of check, I'm just asking why we can't make it a rule that you can castle out of check. I think it would add an interesting dynamic to the game.

There is no logic or a way to ask why yes or why not.
Chess  rules are made this way and this is what rules the game.

I can see where you all are coming from, but can you see where I'm coming from? Have you ever had a situation where you felt like, "Dang, it would be really nice to castle right now" but couldn't because you were in check or it would go through check. That's all I'm asking.

With an attitude like that of course you can't.

Yeah but who would capture their own pieces? It's completely different, this would be helping you. Also when did I say, "we can't castle out of check." Don't quote me if I didn't actually say it. I only posted this to see if some people thought the same as me and some do and some don't, I wasn't trying to spark a full on argument about which side is right.