Issue17
"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
“有两种法律，公正的与不公正的。置身于社会中的每个个人都有责任去遵守公正的法律，甚至更重要的是，去拒不服从并抵制不公正的法律。”
Law has a very long history in the development of our human beings. And it had been changed thousands of times along with the alternation of dynasty. Only very lately has an integrated legal system been set up to govern the affairs of our community. However, someone argues that laws should be deemed as just or unjust. There is no doubt that everyone should follow the just rules and regulations in the legal system. Moreover, the arguer advocates individuals ought to disobey the unjust laws. This argument is so ridiculous that I completely can not accept it.
First of all, the definitions of just and unjust laws are ambiguous. Clarifying the concept of justice is the most important precondition for the further discussion. Different societies have different problems and different criteria for judging the justice of laws. For example, a man in Indonesia is allowed to marry more than two women, which is permitted by the local law. While on the contrary, it may completely be regarded as an illegal action by people from other countries where a man is permitted to marry only one woman according to the national .marriage legislation, such as China. In addition, who has the right to make the decision of which laws are just while others are unjust, the minority authoritative people, the general public, or the legislative body of a government? If their views are in opposition, whose should be adopted to judge the current law whether it is just or not?
Another important reason that I can not agree with this contention is that every individual is obligated to obey all the items in laws, not only the fair ones, in the society. The purpose of establishing the legal system is to govern the affairs of the society and maintain the public security. No one has the privilege to disobey any item in the law. Even if it is the president that breaks the law, he will be published according to the legal in the same way. Assuming that people just obey the just laws, why does the legislature waste time and money to make the laws that are thought to be unjust and opposed by the public? The only answer is these items are necessary for the society and protect most people’s right. Therefore, individual should not only abide part of the laws but all of them.
Besides, as it has been demonstrated above, whether some specific laws are fair or unfair is not easy to discriminated. In that case, how could people be justified to disobey and resist the laws that are considered to be unjust in their own perspectives? It sounds irrational, isn’t it? Just image once someone take some specific law for unjust one, he or she is encouraged to break the law. What a terrible situation it could be! We can still remember the origin of World War two. The fascists deemed the International Law was unjust in behalf of their own country. They attacked a lot of other countries where people were plunged into an abyss of misery. We do never want to see this kind of horror happening again. Therefore, anyone who break the law should be published without any excuse.
In conclusion, the argument is totally incorrect according to the reasoning above. We are calling on that everyone has the responsibility to maintain the legal system and obey laws. Only in that way, can our society developing to a bright future and can we share a peaceful world.
Law has a very long history in the development of our human beings. And it had been changed thousands of times along with the alternation of dynasty. Only very lately has an integrated legal system been set up to govern the affairs of our community. However, someone argues that laws should be deemed as just or unjust. There is no doubt that everyone should follow the just rules and regulations in the legal system. Moreover, the arguer advocates individuals ought to disobey the unjust laws. This argument is so ridiculous that I completely can not accept it.
First of all, the definitions of just and unjust laws are ambiguous. Clarifying the concept of justice is the most important precondition for the further discussion. Different societies have different problems and different criteria for judging the justice of laws. For example, a man in Indonesia is allowed to marry more than two women, which is permitted by the local law. While on the contrary, it may completely be regarded as an illegal action by people from other countries where a man is permitted to marry only one woman according to the national .marriage legislation, such as China. In addition, who has the right to make the decision of which laws are just while others are unjust, the minority authoritative people, the general public, or the legislative body of a government? If their views are in opposition, whose should be adopted to judge the current law whether it is just or not?
Another important reason that I can not agree with this contention is that every individual is obligated to obey all the items in laws, not only the fair ones, in the society. The purpose of establishing the legal system is to govern the affairs of the society and maintain the public security. No one has the privilege to disobey any item in the law. Even if it is the president that breaks the law, he will be published according to the legal in the same way. Assuming that people just obey the just laws, why does the legislature waste time and money to make the laws that are thought to be unjust and opposed by the public? The only answer is these items are necessary for the society and protect most people’s right. Therefore, individual should not only abide part of the laws but all of them.
Besides, as it has been demonstrated above, whether some specific laws are fair or unfair is not easy to discriminated. In that case, how could people be justified to disobey and resist the laws that are considered to be unjust in their own perspectives? It sounds irrational, isn’t it? Just image once someone take some specific law for unjust one, he or she is encouraged to break the law. What a terrible situation it could be! We can still remember the origin of World War two. The fascists deemed the International Law was unjust in behalf of their own country. They attacked a lot of other countries where people were plunged into an abyss of misery. We do never want to see this kind of horror happening again.(这句话感觉有点中式，改为we do never want this kind of horror to happen again是不是好点呢？) Therefore, anyone who break the law should be published without any excuse.
In conclusion, the argument is totally incorrect according to the reasoning above. We are calling on that everyone has the responsibility to maintain the legal system and obey laws. Only in that way, can our society developing to a bright future and can we share a peaceful world.
[ Last edited by happy_shirley on 2005-12-22 at 17:29 ]作者: racy 时间: 2005-12-24 20:00:52 标题: 3rd one
please let me take a seat first
after revising two articles, I feel I am almost burned out, really exhausted作者: happy_shirley 时间: 2005-12-24 22:59:26
呵呵，改文章其实是很累的事情！
详细改一篇比写还要累的！作者: racy 时间: 2005-12-25 18:53:31 标题: sorry, it may be a little late, but I have do my best
Law has a very long history in the development of ourunnecessary word human beings. And unnecessary word it had been changedchange这个词怎么用，什么时候才能被动，查下字典，不然总错 thousands of times along with the alternation 这个词是“两者取其一”，所以不大合适哦of dynasty. Only very lately has an integrated legal system been set up to govern the affairs of our community. However, someone argues that laws should be deemed as just or unjust. There is no doubt that everyone should follow the just rules and regulations in the legal system. Moreover, the arguer advocates individuals ought to disobey the unjust laws. This argument is so ridiculous that I completely can not accept it.这个……好象不是在写ISSUE文章哦，难道是想用ARG的方式打个开头么，开始都还不错，但是MOREOVER开始，就有问题了，ISSUE文章是立论文，题目所给的，不是错误也不是正确的，只是一个让你立论用的材料，所以不用把人家说过的再说一遍，浪费时间，也是浪费感情，因为人家考官都知道题目说过什么了
First of all, the definitions of just and unjust laws are ambiguous. Clarifying the concept of justice is the most important precondition for the further discussion. 不错，这样从概念入手很好Different societies have different problems and different criteria for judging the justice of laws. For example, a man in Indonesia is allowed to marry more than two women, which is permitted by the local law. While on the contrary, it may completely be regarded as an illegal action by people from other countries where a man is permitted to marry only one woman according to the national marriage legislation, such as China. 一夫多妻和一夫一妻制有专门的词哦，那样的话可能比你这样写省不少笔墨 In addition, who has the right to make the decision of which laws are just while others are unjust, the minority authoritative people, the general public, or the legislative body of a government? If their views are in opposition, whose should be adopted to judge the current law whether it is just or not?结论呢？跟你开始的时候一致的结论，加上的话会更有力，或者用反义疑问句，不要只用一个简单疑问句结束，比较不清楚
Another important reason that I can not agree with this contention is that every最好是EACH individual is obligated to obey all the items in laws, not only the fair ones, in the society. The purpose of establishing the legal system前面有LEAGAL SYSTEM，后面可以DIVERSIFY一下，用LEAGAL FRAMEWORK is to govern the affairs of the society and maintain the public security. No one has the privilege to disobey any item in the law. Even if it is the president that breaks the law, he will be published according to the legal THE LEAGAL？WHAT IS THAT？in the same way. Assuming that people just obey the just laws, why does the legislature waste time and money to make the laws that are thought to be unjust and opposed by the public? The only answer is these items are necessary for the society and protect most people’s right. Therefore, individual should not only abide part of the laws but all of them. 我的理解是，还可以从人们的判断正确或取向上来说明这个问题，比如人们判断的正误是非是不是就是正确的，以自己的标准来衡量法律是UNJUST还是JUST是不是不合理？这样的话是不是本身就是非公正的？
Besides, as it has been demonstrated above, whether some specific laws are fair or unfair is not easy to discriminated. In that case, how could people be justified to disobey and resist the laws that are considered to be unjust in their own perspectives? It sounds irrational, isn’t it? Just image 动词once someone take some specific law for unjust one, he or she is encouraged to break the law. What a terrible situation it could be! We can still remember the origin of World War two. 这个，要不就是THE SECOND WORLD WAR，要不就是WORLD WAR II，没有人说WORLD WAR TWO… The fascists deemed the International Law was unjust in behalf of their own country. They attacked a lot of other 既然已经A LOT OF COUNTRIES了，就不用再说OTHER COUNTRIES，这个语境里这样说是重复countries where people were plunged into an abyss of misery. We do never want to see this kind of horror happening again. Therefore, anyone who break the law should be published without any excuse.我明白你的意思，但是问题是EXCUSE针对的中心词是什么，你想说的是人不能有任何借口，但是这里这样说就不合适，具体怎么不合适，还是查一下字典看看EXCUSE的用法吧
In conclusion, the argument is totally incorrect according to the reasoning above. We are calling on that everyone has the responsibility to maintain the legal system and obey laws. Only in that way, can our society developing to a bright future and can we share a peaceful world. 还是同样的问题，这个不是ARG文章，你必须直接上来自己立论，题目不是观点，只是提供给你参考的材料，你要自己立论，所以不能说这个是ARGUMENTA
语言还算不错，语法错误不多，细节上还要注意，词的用法，不能中文意思直接对应，要意思上和语境上都对应。挺好的，这篇是我目前为止看的最省事的一篇了，不用一直看错别字和语法上的问题，也没有读不懂的句子，PS精彩的句子多一点就更好了。作者: happy_shirley 时间: 2005-12-25 20:20:24