Welcome to Gaia! ::

I recently read an interesting commentary, which pointed out an interesting occurance using the specific example of rape cases.

Rape cases seem to have gone down in recent times, according to the author. Granted, there is the element of whether or not the percentage of people reporting is up, but we won't delve into that.

Anyways, what this person was pointing out was that, if the number of rape cases was rising, politicians and, people in general, would be everywhere pointing fingers. (It's the porn, it's the clothes, she's asking for it, etc. I generally think it's bullshit, but whatever.) Yet, when the cases go down, what happens? Everyone ignores it. No one seeks to see why it is that it is decreasing, and instead pays attention to why it is that it's going on.

So then, what situations have you seen where looking to improve the better side might be a better option than preventing the bad side? Is this generally a good philosophy?

To somewhat echo Koi, the basic thoughts of the current generation is 'if I can fix it just enough so it doesn't bother me anymore, then I can ignore it'. Basically, in that situation it would be what can we do to lower rape? (Nothing, rape is a crime about violence as much as murder, and you cannot stop a violent individual if they have not identified themselves as such) And as soon as they take that action and lower the cases, then they'll move on to something more pressing then allow that to fly out of control and completely nullify rape.

In short in most situations this would be a good idea, but (and there's always a but) if there is something that poses more a direct threat then that which is dampered by effort or luck, you must take care of that before it does more harm.

So yeah.