Yeah! RIP Poor Little Bee. You killled it OP, you KILLED it!!

Over reacting to a fear is most definitely their fault. Unless it was some sort of seizure where they lost control of their body, their actions, reactions, and in this case severe over-reactions are their fault. It's a bug. Sure, you might be a little afraid of it, but if you are driving a car, you are at least 14 -- if not 16, and are old enough to act like an adult.

A phobia is an irrational fear, meaning it is NOT rational, and people freak out over them all the time.

Overreacting to a fear, rational or not, is still their fault.

[Oh, oh, let me try your style of argument, #49!] No, it's not. [There, beat that.]

But see, you don't really have complete control of your body when faced with something you fear... fear is psychological, so your brain reacts to the problem at hand instinctively, meaning you act without thinking or being rational.

Well, reactions to irrational fears are often instinct-based and yadda yadda... naturally bypassing logical thought, etc... Insert examples here... But the argument itself wasn't the point. In fact, I find it hilarious that you missed the point entirely. The style of your argument has nothing to do with your perception of the subject nor the side of the argument you're supporting. (I find myself dumbing it down again: it's not WHAT you're arguing, it's HOW you're arguing.) I was simply making fun of you for trying to argue by providing a conclusion without any premises to support it. Since it seems that you need more explanation than the average person, let me put it in layman's terms: it's using the "playground style" of argument. ("Nuh-uh!" "Ya-huh!" - sound familiar?)

Not quite sure what you are saying. Facts are not valid in an argument? Or are you disputing that rear-ending a car so hard the airbag set off is over-reacting to a little harmless bee?

1. The bee is not harmless, OP is allergic. See comment #42. 2. What facts have you presented?

1. There was no reason to think the bee would sting -- unless someone over reacted. 2. Slamming your car *HARD* into another vehicle over a bee is over-reaction. Freaking out over a bee is overreaction. There is no reason to assume the driver has a seizure, so they were in full control of their actions. They were in full control when they behaved in an irresponsible and unsafe manner. Their inappropriate behaviour is the source of both the sting, *and* the accident. Even if they are allergic, so what? You get stung, you either deal with the reaction, or if you are so allergic you need an epipen, you, well, *use the epipen*, pay the $5 copay (or $20 full price, if you are foolish enough not to carry insurance) and get a new one. At no point where the OP's actions warranted, intelligent, or likely to improve the situation. In fact, short of trying to swallow the bee alive, while flooring the gas pedal (which they did anyway) and holding the pedal down for a few minutes, I cannot think of a less-sane reaction to seeing a bee. Being allergic is not cart blanc to act like a moron -- in fact, it means the opposite -- the OP, as a person allergic to bees is *more* likely than the average person to know basic bee behaviour and how to react to a bee. The more allergic a person is to bees, the greater this knowledge should be. Bee allergies are no different than nut allergies -- find someone with a peanut allergy, and I guarantee that they will be able to identify 15 products in the average kitchen that contain nuts -- that you would never think twice about.

I have to say the broken nose, because of the two black eyes, haha.

Well, now you know! Next time you see a bee, all you have to do is think "Hey--I've been through worse. This bee can't hurt me any worse than a broken nose, and I lived through that." But don't get all cocky and start throwing rocks at killer bee hives, now.

LMFAO. Yeah, I totally wouldn't do that.

But needles at the doctor's office don't normally inject pain-inducing poison.