The problem isn't that punitive damages are high, the problem is that punitive damages are high AND the plaintiff+lawyers get to keep it.

Whining that some money might end up in the hands of lawyers, and out of the hands of abusers (or those who insure abusers), is simply dumbfuckery. Always has been, always will be.

This is why our system of punitive damages sucks. It encourages people to game the system in hopes of winning the lawsuit lottery.

Because people want to be have their rights abused, have their faces beaten in, or even killed on the slim chance they can force a settlement from a city's insurance company?

That's the dumbest fucking thing I've seen in quite some time, and this is the Internet.

Who needs the reality check? Why are you blathering on about hundreds of people injured when Obama's drone strikes have murdered hundreds of kids? Not to speak of the Iraq war, which has killed a million people, created millions more refugees, and destabilized an entire region of of the world?

100 pounds of racist American Exceptionalist bullshit in a five pound sack.

So sex differences only exist when they benefit men?

So you like a little projection with you non sequiturs?

That mothers would be more invested in their offspring is easily predicted by that fact that they have a massive biological investments in their offspring that men lack

They have the same long term investment: passing on genes. Biology 101.

it's one of those things that I'll simply cite as obvious.

What's obvious is you haven't seen the statistics showing that if you have to chose one parent, children are better off with their fathers than their mothers. Drug use, teen pregnancy, graduating from high school, incarceration rates...it's not even close. Before you whine about the web site name, note the copious amounts of sources, and your inability to counter them.

Unless you bring a weapon into the equation strength becomes relevant because it creates a power imbalance.

Some part of "abuse is about abuse, not who is stronger" that you have a hard time understanding?

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Says the jingoistic idiot. Sending soldiers to death with a medical crisis makes as much sense as sending doctors to fight off an invasion. What part of "tiny Cuba sent far more doctors than the United States" are you having a hard time understanding?

Then a thread on Reddit

And if it's on the Internet, it must be true! Sorry, but that's just sloppy thinking.

Your bigoted phobia is noted.

What did you have to do that - bomb a school? Women have murdered their husbands in full view his daughter, served time, and still have a say over custody.

I think an unbiased system would be female skewed since mothers tend to be more dedicated than fathers but I don't know if the system is in fact unbiased.

You talk about an unbiased system while in the same breath making an incredibly biased statement. Interesting.

But the strength difference between men and women is pretty drastic

And irrelevant. Abuse isn't about who's stronger, it's about....abusing your partner. You could be a 400 lbs benchpressing linebacker, but it's not going to protect you from being hit with a frying pan while you're sleeping. There's also the heavy societal condition that men should never hit women, even if it's in self-defense.

Women have had the right to vote for a century. WYP?

Easy comparison is the Ebola outbreak in Africa over the last year. The United States sent occupying troops. Cuba sent hundreds of doctors.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." - Anatole France

Conservatives are stereotypically the party that wants to reduce government to its basic functions

You mean they want no counterbalance to capitalism, greed, inherited wealth, rent seeking or oligarchy. Someone being exempt from work for the next ten generations because their last name is Bush, Clinton or Romney is the system working as intended.

Some poor kid getting foodstamps so he doesn't go hungry, equalized school funding so he's not in a class with 35 other kids, health care so his teeth rots out...that's a crime against humanity.

However you want to rationalize the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on your hands, while wagging you finger at someone who killed....three people.

How is it not unethical? Ever hear of disclosure when someone has a financial interest in something they're pushing?

What sites does Slashdot send people to that aren't there to make money?

Not the point, but you knew that already.

I don't get this witchhunt.

I don't get the willfully obtuse act, unless you're a sockpuppet account.