Arson Attack On German Paper That Republished Hebdo Cartoons - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906040]Then stop trying tto argue because you can't have a discussion about the causes of Extremism without "geopolitical rubbish". Also why did you edit the quoted text?[/QUOTE] Because there's a reason I put "probably" there. Obviously extremism exists and the middle east is a retardedly fucked up place, but for Christ's sake, are you telling me radicalized extremists are doing it because other people many miles away have it rough and not because it's sanctioned by Allah [editline]11th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46906053]Muslims who go terrorist are generally wealthier, upper class and well educated men who face widespread racism and prejudice from the nations they immigrate to and turn to radical imams who tell them there is nothing wrong with their homes. The problem isn't a religious one, it's a cultural ones, and simply snapping off at anyone who worships the Quran or has brown skin because of terrorism is just idiotic.[/QUOTE] Source me.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906000]So we're down to violence that "wouldn't otherwise have happened" now.[/QUOTE] Okay. We can't prove that the violence would not have happened. But we can certainly think about it's likely hood of not happening otherwise. What if there was no taboo in Islamic teachings about drawing Muhammad? Would these artists be dead today?

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46906066]Because there's a reason I put "probably" there. Obviously extremism exists and the middle east is a retardedly fucked up place, but for Christ's sake, are you telling me radicalized extremists are doing it because other people many miles away have it rough and not because it's sanctioned by Allah [editline]11th January 2015[/editline] Source me.[/QUOTE] Then explain your reasons instead of just changing quotes around. They are doing it because someone far smarter than them made them think it's sanctioned by Allah.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906084]Then explain your reasons instead of just changing quotes around. They are doing it because someone far smarter than them made them think it's sanctioned by Allah.[/QUOTE] yeah, because it is sanctioned by allah, and so they wouldn't have done it because of that specific reason if it wasn't, right? So, what would the statistics be like if the qur'an specifically banned any and all killing of all kind. Would there be just as many radicalized western terrorists attacking or less or more? I happen to think it would be less. My reason was "it makes sense to me to think that if you take away what seems to be the reason that radicalized attacks happen, that less radicalized attacks would happen" therefore probably

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906084]Someone far smarter than them made them think it's sanctioned by Allah.[/QUOTE] Religion in a nutshell. Surely you have a problem with this sort of thing? And want to argue against it?

[QUOTE=Kardia;46906077]Okay. We can't prove that the violence would not have happened. But we can certainly think about it's likely hood of not happening otherwise. What if there was no taboo in Islamic teachings about drawing Muhammad? Would these artists be dead today?[/QUOTE] This is a logical falacy of hindsight examples. What if Britain and the rest didn't arbritrarily split up their colonial areas into countries without any consideration of cultural/social structure post WW1/WW2 ? What if Shell/BP and the rest didn't pay astronomic prices for oil in the hands of regimes that are known to shit on people? What if we didn't make bank with the weapons we sold to those regions? What if we didn't accept them as cheap workforce for low education jobs throughout the 60s/70s/80s ?

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46906066]Source me.[/QUOTE] Do the names Osama bin Laden, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Mohamed Atta, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Hai Hanjour, Ziad Jarrah, Marwan al-Shehhi or Nawaf al-Hazmi ring any bells?

[QUOTE=Kardia;46906109]Religion in a nutshell. Surely you have a problem with this sort of thing? And want to argue against it?[/QUOTE] I do but I make a difference between religion as a whole which means culture and social structures as well and people missusing it.

[QUOTE=Perfumly;46904731][media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg[/media][/QUOTE] Oh man. Assuming those statistics are correct, I have some mixed thoughts. First off, the fact that the dude is a conservative is an issue for me because I'm a liberal but I can't find anything factually wrong with what he's saying. I know that the muslims I know are all great people who, when a terrorist attack occurs, immediately denounce it on facebook etc. However, I live near DC in a wealthy area, so I can assume that these muslims are pretty much like me; upper middle class, and have a higher standard of living than those in islamic countries. I don't believe that the problem is Islam, however. Of course, Islam is just an idea; just like democracy, Christianity, Communism, or Populism. Similar radical attitudes can be found with the population of anybody who follow an ideal. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Arson.2C_bombing.2C_and_property_crime]Christians blowing up abortion clinics[/url], [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik]ultra right-wingers shooting up left-wing party summer camps[/url], [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing]Gun-nuts, libertarians, and other conspiracy-theorist government paranoiacs blowing up federal buildings[/url]. The difference, of course is that these people ARE minorities, but that's because they live first-world lifestyles, while the muslims of these countries live third world lifestyles. I don't think it's wrong to say that most muslims are at least ultra-conservative, if not totally radical, simply because of their views on women. And I also think that we need to stop saying "Islam teaches peace", because even if that is so, a lot of people aren't listening. He's right that these terrorist groups get their support from the poor. The other deal is that these groups are huge drug traffickers. You pick any terrorist group on the planet, and I can promise you they're selling drugs. Whether the Drugs are just a vehicle by which to commit terror, or the terror is a vehicle by which to sell drugs, I don't know. I do know that the structure is similar to south american cartels. The cartels build hospitals, schools, etc. in return for allegiance. The poor people get jobs working the fields, guarding the fields, acting as lookouts, and they get rewarded for snitching to the cartels on police officers and police informants. The islamic terrorists do similar things. Often, the drugs are being grown by force; The taliban shows up and says "you grow opium and weed for us now. If it's not back for harvest by the time we get back, we'll kill you and your family". The American military made it a policy not to burn these fields because it just hurts the farmers in the end, which ruins our image out there. The local populations buy into the radical Imam teachings and do what they're told. Meanwhile, the command structure gets to push forward their beliefs, and enjoy the money off of selling Afghanistans world-famous black tar heroin. Are most Muslims radicalized? If the statistics are to be believed, then yes. We can't keep our strategy up by pretending like these terrorists are holding the middle east hostage and that the common person wants to just live a free life with a nice job with his family, respecting his wife and so on, hoping that one day the oppression they live under will be lifted. They're the basis for this ideology; they want shariah law in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq and Iran.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906111]This is a logical falacy of hindsight examples. What if Britain and the rest didn't arbritrarily split up their colonial areas into countries without any consideration of cultural/social structure post WW1/WW2 ? What if Shell/BP and the rest didn't pay astronomic prices for oil in the hands of regimes that are known to shit on people? What if we didn't make bank with the weapons we sold to those regions? What if we didn't accept them as cheap workforce for low education jobs throughout the 60s/70s/80s ?[/QUOTE] Would it be a fallacy of hindsight to ask why people kill others if it's written in the constitution that "you can kill people, just try not to ye?" Also, it's not a fallacy of hindsight, which involves adding information not available to past people and asking them why they didn't use that information. Saying "Don't kill" isn't some magical hindsight information. It's a basic staple of human evolution and morality.

Jesus Christ, all of this extremism is only going to hurt the Muslim community more in the end.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906111]This is a logical falacy of hindsight examples. What if Britain and the rest didn't arbritrarily split up their colonial areas into countries without any consideration of cultural/social structure post WW1/WW2 ? What if Shell/BP and the rest didn't pay astronomic prices for oil in the hands of regimes that are known to shit on people? What if we didn't make bank with the weapons we sold to those regions? What if we didn't accept them as cheap workforce for low education jobs throughout the 60s/70s/80s ?[/QUOTE] [I]What if[/I] the cartoonists didn't draw Muhammad? Would you at least answer this question? And possibly the previous one? Or do you seriously consider it a fallacy to even ask these question? Because that would be astounding.

[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46906053]Muslims who go terrorist are generally wealthier, upper class and well educated men who face widespread racism and prejudice from the nations they immigrate to and turn to radical imams who tell them there is nothing wrong with their homes. The problem isn't a religious one, it's a cultural ones, and simply snapping off at anyone who worships the Quran or has brown skin because of terrorism is just idiotic.[/QUOTE] This. Except the exact opposite. Seriously, every wanna be Jihadist I've ever heard of came from a lower class, impoverished background, where are your sources to back these assertions.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906121]I do but I make a difference between religion as a whole which means culture and social structures as well and people [B]missusing[/B] it.[/QUOTE] What is religion meant to be used for then? You think the only parts of religion that are true are the benign parts? Everything else is misinterpretation and misuse? You must be joking.

[QUOTE=Phil5991;46906256]This. Except the exact opposite. Seriously, every wanna be Jihadist I've ever heard of came from a lower class, impoverished background, where are your sources to back these assertions.[/QUOTE] If you would literally read the next post you'd see a list of names?

[QUOTE=Perfumly;46904869]Maybe everyone in the world should just stop practicing inherently violent and insane archaic abrahamic religions there's a crazy idea[/QUOTE] Here's my perspective (which is considerably under-informed except for Christianity): I think the essential problem that Abrahamitic religions have in common is that they are very immutable as far as religions go. Everything is written down and then mostly "fixed" for all eternity. The other part that exacerbates the issue is that they all contain an unrefutable (defined as not to be falsified by worldly matters) "exclusionary clause": Those who choose not to follow the "correct" teachings will be punished in the afterlife or at least not be granted benefits. If you combine the two, you get a religion that is extremely slow to evolve (barring large splits like the reformation) and carries with it the solution for a situation it arose in, into a completely different situation. Obviously all three major Abrahamitic ones have parts that are aimed at how they work in a vacuum, which are usually not a problem and as far as I can tell are mostly equivalent from a humanitarian point of view when reduced to their intentions, but they differ quite a lot in their circumstances and interaction with other religions. In order of founding: - Judaism is a religion that, if I remember correctly, was founded during a time and area when very mutable polytheism was common. The reason it persisted and spread is (as far as I can tell) that it promotes strong cohesion among its members and excludes other tribes culturally. - Christianity was founded (and maybe more importantly spread) during a time of some authoritarian pressure. Its core theses strike me as something that gives solace first-and-foremost, and while it heavily promotes proselytism (convincing others to join) it does so essentially nonviolently (since something else really wouldn't fly in that kind of environment). It also is comparatively low on rituals that could be found out and persecuted. - Islam is pretty undoubtedly a war-time religion. While it does include a civil code, there are also explicit promotions of violent conflicts that are canonical, especially regarding (defensive) proselytism as far as I know. That said, there are a few factors that make Christianity adapt more easily to changes (now that Islam's very strong mutability through divinely appointed religious and political leaders is lost): First and foremost, it's the permissiveness towards other Abrahamitic religions and the inclusiveness towards other interpretations of Christianity. Since there's only one criterion for salvation that is rigid in the original text, they are usually not automatically considered absolutely wrong and as such can develop relatively unimpeded. This can be seen in the number of different Christian religions that, when they clash, usually do so due to political and not ideological motivations. This is in harsh contrast to Islam's Shia/Sunni split which is more often violent than not. Additionally, while Judaism and Islam are (as far as I can tell) heavy on rules and rituals, the core teachings of Christianity appeal to people doing what they perceive as right anyway, and promote them indirectly through stories. This means that the book isn't considered god-given (unnecessary since people usually resonate with almost all of its teachings on [I]some[/I] level) and also isn't supposed to be taken literally (which is very blatant in certain parts of the New Testament employing heavy symbolism). This means two things that are important for the image of Christianity in current western societies: It doesn't erode too quickly in a liberal society, so of the major Abrahamitic religions it's fairly uniquely suited to a networked post-modern culture (though as all religions with a specific creation myth it doesn't coexist too well with advances in science). Additionally it is difficult to use for warfare, since it tends to erode strong authority (but promotes it without. I think it tends to some middle ground). In contrast, Islam strikes me more as following the idea(l) of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statesman_%28dialogue%29"]the statesman expressed by Plato[/URL]. In the presence of an ideal and just person this is likely to be the best possible form of rule but, (afaik) as Plato mentions, such a leader is hard to come by and the system fails horribly in their absence. Nonetheless it seems to have been very apt for its time and for a while caused the culture surrounding it to flourish, making it one of the most modern societies globally. I think the catastrophes that led to the modern issues with Islam are mostly events during which authority was lost without amending the laws accordingly, or cases in which the authority was or is used in a non-beneficial way. (It would be really great if someone who knows more about Islamic history could write a bit about this, since I'm interested but unfortunately didn't have too much opportunity to learn more so far. The only religion that is very thoroughly examined in school in Germany is usually Christianity, and I went to a Christian school so I didn't have the option to take ethics instead.) With a good religious and political leader Islamic societies should be able to function well and peacefully in our modern world, and I think there are a few current examples of this, but overall it often seems not to be the case, unfortunately. Personally I'm not too fond of either of the three due to their focus on otherworldly salvation. (German) Catholicism creeps me out, but that's more because I emotionally reject the idea of delegating agency. By comparison German Protestant Christianity is extremely worldly, so I don't have too many issues with it. Other than their political implications I know far too little about Judaism and Islam to subjectively judge them, so in those regards all I can do is agree with or reject certain worldly teachings.

[QUOTE=Phil5991;46906256]This. Except the exact opposite. Seriously, every wanna be Jihadist I've ever heard of came from a lower class, impoverished background, where are your sources to back these assertions.[/QUOTE] He's thinking of the guys who pulled off 9/11, who were generally wealthy individuals who went to places like Germany or the United States to get educated and live the affluent bachelor lifestyle. This was of course in the late 1990s/early 2000s, a lot could have changed since then.

I view any religion that has an authority such as a God to be one of laws. When you are told what is right and wrong by your religion, you are told what is legal and what is not legal. To me, one of the most important factors in regards to a law is it not being so vague as to allow for multiple interpretations of what that law means, what it governs. I think it's important that a law is concise and even the most foolish man can ascertain what actions are legal and what actions are not. I think it's important that no man can adequately argue that the wording of the law means Y when it means X, or that a new law that is presented is invalidated by a law that takes precedence that is introduced 650 pages back in the middle of some story about the relative monetary value of a goat in comparison to a sheep. When I see Muslims say that Islam is peaceful and they do not condone acts of violence and terrorism, I full well believe them as they are most probably telling the truth. When I see so called extremists claiming their doctrine compels them to commit acts of violence upon others in order to defend the good name of their prophet and convert others to their way of thinking, I also believe them as they are likely telling the truth as well. Islam has a problem, the same one that most religions have, vagueness and openness for interpretation. I think it's valid criticism of Islam that two groups of people who claim to follow the teachings they've interpreted from a single book (and various things said and compiled into writing by the person responsible for the revelations that created said book) could reach two completely diametrically opposed conclusions. How is it that murder cannot be justified according to one group but can according to another when they both acquired their conclusion from the same book? The answer is of course interpretation. If I happened upon a law that could be interpreted like that, that could be both one and the exact opposite according to two different people, I'd either expect that law to be remade so that such confusion could no longer occur or I'd abandon adhering to that law altogether as it fucking sucks. I don't blame the Muslims who believe in peace for the murders by those who believe in violence, but I do ask why do either believe in such a flawed book of laws. If I were Muslim I'd take a seat on the couch and cross my arms and refuse to do anything until Allah sent down a prophet who also happened to be a master of law, semantics and linguistics and codified and rewrote the Quaran and the Hadiths so as to eliminate all vagueness and openness for intepretation.

[QUOTE=Riutet;46906325][...] If I happened upon a law that could be interpreted like that, that could be both one and the exact opposite according to two different people, I'd either expect that law to be remade so that such confusion could no longer occur or I'd abandon adhering to that law altogether as it fucking sucks. [...][/QUOTE] Funnily enough the first sentence of Germany's constitution is one of those :v: I'm very fond of it though. I think the issue of unclear laws is a major problem not only in religion but also in secular politics. It's why I'm not fond of common law (as opposed to civil law) and the USA's legal system, for example.

[QUOTE=Kardia;46906268]What is religion meant to be used for then? You think the only parts of religion that are true are the benign parts? Everything else is misinterpretation and misuse? You must be joking.[/QUOTE] Everything else is missuse, yes. [editline]11th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Phil5991;46906256]This. Except the exact opposite. Seriously, every wanna be Jihadist I've ever heard of came from a lower class, impoverished background, where are your sources to back these assertions.[/QUOTE] You are talking about the people who are used. He is talking about the people who actually control stuff. [editline]11th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Kardia;46906220][I]What if[/I] the cartoonists didn't draw Muhammad? Would you at least answer this question? And possibly the previous one? Or do you seriously consider it a fallacy to even ask these question? Because that would be astounding.[/QUOTE] I don't know what if this and that didn't happen. It's like asking "if it didn't rain, would the street not have been wet?" after a rain You can't answer questions like that.

[QUOTE=Kardia;46906268]What is religion meant to be used for then? You think the only parts of religion that are true are the benign parts? Everything else is misinterpretation and misuse? You must be joking.[/QUOTE] I think it's more an answer to the question of "When should religion be used, at all?". From an ethical point of view all parts of religion that aren't benign are misuses of religion. Obviously if a religion contains harmful parts then applying them wouldn't be a misuse of [I]that[/I] religion, but [I]that[/I] religion itself would be misuse of religion as a concept (or tool, but I don't think the idea flies well with that wording).

[QUOTE=Riutet;46906325]Islam has a problem, the same one that most religions have, vagueness and openness for interpretation.[/QUOTE] I think Islam does not have this problem as much as Christianity does, or Judaism does. Islam is pretty concise in certain aspects - especially the aspects that advocate conflict and violence. This comparative lack of vagueness [I]is[/I] the real problem in my opinion. At least with Christianity and Judaism people could bend and cherry pick the rules to be more modern, logical and fair. There is so much within their respective texts that they could pretty much pick and choose and no one would bat an eye for too long. But Islam? Not enough leeway for this sort of cherry picking. Islam isn't vague enough. Too many people read it as if it were the literal word of Allah. Too many people think women should be treated as property, too many think adultery and homosexuality and apostasy is punishable by death, think war and slavery is okay. Too many people look at the Islamic texts and say "It's obvious that we should do X because Allah said so." I know that there are people who consider Islamic teachings as vague, but they don't read it as literally as possible, they don't want to. They aren't in a situation where they feel compelled to read it in that manner. They are comfortable thinking that Islam is vague, comfortable thinking that Islamic fundamentalists got it wrong. They don't want to consider Islam as negative - they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings by speaking out against a set of beliefs. [editline]11th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Killuah;46906518]It's like asking "if it didn't rain, would the street not have been wet?" after a rain You can't answer questions like that.[/QUOTE] That's ludicrous. Would the ground be dry if it didn't rain? It would very likely be dry if it didn't rain. I think it's fair to say that. Could you explain why it isn't fair to say?

[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;46903834]If it was an immigrant who did this than somebody should be deported. If it was a citizen than somebody should be jailed.[/QUOTE] Jailed, then deported after release. Who knows what the government of whatever Islamic-controlled state would do to the perpetrator. Hell, they might even agree with them.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906518]I don't know what if this and that didn't happen. It's like asking "if it didn't rain, would the street not have been wet?" after a rain You can't answer questions like that.[/QUOTE] You can make predictions based on probability. However, and this is the important part, while you can learn from hindsight (which is very important because it offsets suboptimal decision-making), bringing it up in this context here can be considered at best irrelevant and at worst a form of victim-blaming. If this isn't countered through argument and results in weakening satirists' protection from harm, it directly erodes the human rights of freedom of expression as well as equality before the law. [QUOTE=Kardia;46906697]That's ludicrous. Would the ground be dry if it didn't rain? It would very likely be dry if it didn't rain. I think it's fair to say that. Could you explain why it isn't fair to say?[/QUOTE] See above, I suppose. It's technically not unfair, but it adds nothing good to the discussion either. "[What would have happened if they didn't publish the caricatures?]" is one of the few questions where "[I don't care (and neither should you because ...).]" is a good answer.

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906518]Everything else is missuse, yes.[/QUOTE] You have a very naive view of all religions then.

[QUOTE=Kardia;46906697]I think Islam does not have this problem as much as Christianity does, or Judaism does. Islam is pretty concise in certain aspects - especially the aspects that advocate conflict and violence. This comparative lack of vagueness [I]is[/I] the real problem in my opinion. [...][/QUOTE] It depends. Christianity is very clear on the few absolute rules it contains, but they are extremely few in comparison to almost every other religion I know. It's not a problem of precision alone, but Islam has a really bad case of simultaneous over-regimentation and lack of precision or (in the context of a modern society not at war) proportionality of punishment. There are many benign forms of Islam now, but the original form definitely is harmful to inhomogeneous societies.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46906282]Words[/QUOTE] Although my knowledge of Islam and Middle Eastern culture is limited, the huge downfall of Islam from what I understand was the internal split between the Sunni and Shiites which involved a conflicting view on the line of succession with regards to the Imam who would rule the Umma (Community). The catholic church (universal church, not really the Roman Catholic Church,) held meetings to which topics of doctrine could be discussed, debated, and accepted or denied within the Orthodox (Widely accepted doctrine). This would leave room for differing viewpoints to be heard such as Arianism for example, which teaches that God the Son is unequal to the Father. I think this would also void the idea of statesman in this regard because the knowledge is shared, discussed, and for this reason always changing. With the Old Testament being primarily of ancient Jewish customs, traditions, and laws, the Christians are not obligated to follow through with this and is often regarded as a review of prophecy and history. Since the sacrifice of Christ (the perfect sacrifice) pretty much completed the cycle of continuous sacrificial offerings of lamb, because the lamb was not "perfect", the ritual had to be repeated. The New Testament on the other hand, utilizes what seems to be stories which would have related to the people of the day, since telling the common man (the Greeks, for example in Paul or Peter's case) was not always effective in delivering the point of the message. Salvation in Christianity in general is pretty point blank, simply following the teachings of Christ due to the grace of God already setting the premise for the path to salvation, such as love thy neighbor as many have pointed out, helping the impoverished, protecting family [B](8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [I]it is[/I] the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast; (book of Ephesians)[/B]. Islam, on the other hand involves mandatory acts of worship in order to have hope for paradise (don't take my word on that, correct me if I'm wrong.) and typically relies on these works, "O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and speak the right word, He will put your deeds into a right state for you, and forgive you your faults; and whoever obeys Allah and His Apostle, he indeed achieves a mighty success," (33:70-71, [URL="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html"]online[/URL], trans. by M.H. Shakir). Catholicism, although I'm not so sure of how it differs in Germany, simply focuses on rituals practiced and revised since the early 12 Christian Church fathers, and in any organization, including religion, delegation is inevitable in such a strict hierarchy. However, since each church is practically under control of the priest who runs it, anything the pope says or declares is pretty much regarded as personal opinion among many Catholics. Similarly to Islam, if an Imam promoted literal Jihad against unbelievers, he will either be denied by the individual Muslim or embraced. So it really is on an individual basis.

[QUOTE=Kardia;46906770]You have a very naive view of all religions then.[/QUOTE] That has nothing to do with my view. It's missuse and it happens with every religion. It's just that we fucked up the regions that have a lot of Muslims really good in the past and now we're seeing the results. [editline]11th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Tamschi;46906765]You can make predictions based on probability. However, and this is the important part, while you can learn from hindsight (which is very important because it offsets suboptimal decision-making), bringing it up in this context here can be considered at best irrelevant and at worst a form of victim-blaming. If this isn't countered through argument and results in weakening satirists' protection from harm, it directly erodes the human rights of freedom of expression as well as equality before the law. See above, I suppose. It's technically not unfair, but it adds nothing good to the discussion either. "[What would have happened if they didn't publish the caricatures?]" is one of the few questions where "[I don't care (and neither should you because ...).]" is a good answer.[/QUOTE] It's unfair in a sense that the answer to the question is so complex and complicated but people still expect clear and one-sided answers with questions like this.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46906765][...] "[What would have happened if they didn't publish the caricatures?]" is one of the few questions where "[I don't care (and neither should you because ...).]" is a good answer. [...] [/QUOTE] I'll explain why you should care if you'll explain why I shouldn't. People may want to reflect on the consequences of any given action and asking "what if" is a perfectly reasonable way to reflect on the consequences of past actions and potential future actions. What if I fell of that roof when I was a child? Would I have died? Was it dangerous to be there in the first place? Should I go onto a roof again? Should I be more careful? All these questions are reasonable.

[QUOTE=Kardia;46906697] That's ludicrous. Would the ground be dry if it didn't rain? [/QUOTE] Exatly . [quote]It would very likely be dry if it didn't rain. [/quote] That is up to the circumstances and that's what people do forget when they ask unanswerable questions like that.