Technically it's not work safe, but it actually is. Or vice versa.

This is possibly the most un-reassuring reassurance I've ever seen.

This one isn't as gross, but the description provides... useful knowledge: [link]

Patient was a front seat passenger in a car and had right foot on the portion of the dash where the airbag deploys. The car was involved in a low speed (25mph) crash. The passenger airbag deployed, tearing the foot from the tibia and grossly dislocating the talus. Driver was uninjured.

I often put my feet up on the dash before I saw this case. Not anymore!

This is possibly the most un-reassuring reassurance I've ever seen.

Or is is reassuring un-reassurance?

Yeah, I've found the same. We really have trouble with friendly arguments around politics in this country.

I think there is a tendency to really disrespect people with a different opinion. I hear about how how environmentalists are a bunch of idiots, anyone who does terrible things must be an atheist, only unpatriotic people oppose the war (I don't tend to be around a lot of liberal people in meatspace). I find myself falling into the same trap sometimes too, conservatives don't give a damn about the poor, all fundamentalists want a theocracy, etc... I have to remember that people generally want the best and just have different opinions on how to achieve that.

someone throws out the "fact"

And that seems to be a big part of the problem.

I take no issue (or at least, much smaller issue) with someone stating their belief as just that...belief. A shut-you-down fact bonanza leads me to suspect one taking that stance doesn't actually know what s/he is talking about.

The FACT is, unless I'm speaking to the originator of an idea or the world's leading expert in something*, I'm not inclined to bow to any view whole-cloth. There is always room for exploration, but we don't seem to be able to tolerate (pun intended) that ambiguity in this polarized culture.

• Then again, there were 'experts' who believed, without doubt, that the world was flat, so there you go.

I loved when this question came up on QI and Alan (woobie) Davies challenged Stephen Fry on how we actually know the earth is NOT flat. The look...pause...um 'photographs'...response was priceless.

I have to remember that people generally want the best and just have different opinions on how to achieve that.

This is how explain that the White House press secretary's husband is a good dog-park friend of mine. She, herself, is a quite nice person. He is a very kind man. So, how do I rationalize my despising of her work? I see her as a whole person...and then work even harder to create the world _I_ want.

P, the husband, was so thoughtful of my feelings after the election. I will never forget his agenda-free kindness. It was a 'moment'.

I want to make sure that what I say is accurate so when someone throws out the "fact" that say global warming isn't really happening, I don't really want to respond unless I can cite something.

Ah, so you don't believe "calling bullshit" is a perfectly valid debate technique like I do. I also employ the "eyeroll" and the "What are you on????" techniques.

After an election, when someone asks me what I think of the results and I'm not sure of their position, I've found that the 100% safe response is, "I'm so glad it's over."

Ah, so you don't believe "calling bullshit" is a perfectly valid debate technique like I do. I also employ the "eyeroll" and the "What are you on????" techniques.

I've had to be very careful with my tendency to do this. Which goes directly back to Fry's point.

I can roll my eyes in exasperation or call bullshit without it meaning that you and all your ancestors are below average thinkers with recently shorn tails. And yet, it gets taken that way more often than not.

Ah, so you don't believe "calling bullshit" is a perfectly valid debate technique like I do.

This is why I suck at debating. I don't want to call bullshit until I know exactly how it is bullshit and what the shitless information is.