寄托家园留学论坛

标题: 0606G同主题写作第一期——Issue178 [打印本页]

作者: 11yaoyao 时间: 2006-1-30 01:13:17 标题: 0606G同主题写作第一期——Issue178

Issue178:
It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people’s behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. laws cannot change what is in people’s hearts and minds.
通过法律可以控制或者限制人们的行为，但是立法是无法改变人类本性的。法律无法改变人们的感情和思想。

修锐分类：
个体和整体

分析关键词，确定观点：
But：这个词比较关键，语气上的转折，重点突出，说明题目是强调but后的句子，所以破题关键就是but联系的这个句子。

题目理解：
为了更好的理解和分析题目，我们不妨这样来换用一下标点：通过法律可以控制或者限制人们的行为，可是立法是无法改变人类本性的，法律无法改变人们的感情和思想。

这样就清楚多了，和原文也并没有实质上的区别。这样我们把后面的两句联系起来看，发现从中可以找到自己的论述方向。

首先，三句话意思独立，但是后两句的联系似乎更为紧密。把每句话看做是一个意群，这样就有三个基本观点。我的理解是，这道题目完全可以采取完全赞成的观点来写作。会比较容易上手。因为题目本身合情合理。当然，由于是三句话，每句都可以有赞成和反对，所以搭配有很多种。下面进行详细的分类如下：
1.完全赞成。
2.完全反对。
①可以赞成第一句而反对后两句。
②也可以反对第一句而赞成后两句。
这里要注意的是，我们可以把三个句子都当做分论点，但是也可以把后两句看作联系更紧密的两个意思。把它们看作是一个意思的两个方面，或者也可以理解为“法律无法改变人们的感情和思想”是“但是立法是无法改变人类本性的”这句话的进一步说明，或者把最后一句看作是第二句的两个分论点。几种看法，我觉得都可行。

还需要说明的是，不管怎么写，这道题目都可以看做是个结论型的文章，把题目当做一个结论来看待，可能更明白一些。对于这样的一种题目，由于是下结论，从我个人的理解来说，经常可以从结论本身立观点，从直接说明结论正确与否入手，摆明观点，进行论述。

用第一种采取完全赞成态度的来分析：
（对采取完全赞成态度的提纲，这个最好写，分论点就用题目的三句话就可以了，所以拿这个做例子。）
中心观点：赞成题目，立论。
（分三段论述。）
1．法律有用。可以通过法律限制或控制人们的行为。
（这里可以从法律的定义和作用入手，法律的作用就是规范行为，法律的惩罚可以起到警示作用。）

2．人类本性不可能被法律所改变。
（这里，可以从人性格的形成因素说起，性格的形成因素有很多，大的方面，有遗传，和环境因素。环境因素细分，有家庭，社会，文化背景，所受到的教育……形成过程越复杂，因素越多，也就越难改变。）

3．法律也不能改变人们的感情和想法。
（①法律的惩罚作用虽然可以让人们意识什么是正确的和错误的行为，但是却不能改变人们对一些事物和现象的感情和看法。感情方面，极端一点可以说死刑犯，犯人的家属还是会为了他和难过。
②想法和认识方面，可以说环境保护，虽然人们会因为法律而意识到一些行为是禁止的，比如乱伐林木，偷盗古董，但是从想法上讲，他们并不一定就赞成立法规定，正因为如此，很多人依旧乱捕乱杀野生动物等等。除此之外，还可以说政治信仰或宗教信仰不同发生冲突，比如以前欧洲新教和天主教的对立，法律可以惩罚一个人，立法可以限制人们的行为，但是很难改变其信仰。这里我觉得如果引用现在耶路萨冷发生的事情有点不大合适，如果援引过去的例子，历史上发生过的事情，可能会好一些。）

除了完全用这三句话做论点，也可以采取上面说过的，把后两句看作是一个整体的办法，用第二句做分论点，然后从感情和想法入手进行论证，这样就涉及到一个问题，如果采取这种写法，那么就是两段，所以我觉得，不妨再加上一段，进行补充说明。可以说，人类的本性虽然不能够被法律所改变，但是环境因素是人性格形成的最重要因素，所以如果环境改变那么人的本性也许就有改变。这里，可以说教育，家庭，社会……这样依旧是三段。而且比第一种三段论更加的饱满。

除了这两种，还有许多别的写法，希望大家能够积极讨论，把自己独特的提纲拿出来，写出自己独特的文章。

以前收录的一些优秀的习作和修改：
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... 1&highlight=178
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... 1&highlight=178
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... 1&highlight=178
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... 1&highlight=178

[ 本帖最后由 11yaoyao 于 2006-1-30 20:14 编辑 ]

作者: 11yaoyao 时间: 2006-1-30 01:13:22 标题: 参考资料

A
法的作用
http://www.zixishi.cn/sikao/book.php?id=7
（一）法的规范作用 (760)
法的规范作用是法自身表现出来的、对人们的行为或社会关系的可能影响。
　　１．指引作用。法的指引作用表现为：法律作为一种行为规范，为人们提供某种行为模式，指引人们可以这样行为，必须这样行为或不得这样行为，从而对行为者本人的行为产生影响。法对人们行为的指引，也相应有两种方式：
　　（１）确定的指引。
　　（２）有选择的指引。
　　２．评价作用。法的评价作用表现在：法律对人们的行为是否合法或违法及其程度，具有判断、衡量的作用。
　　３．预测作用。法的预测作用，也是法的可预测性，表现在：人们可以根据法律规范的规定可事先估计到当事人双方将如何行为及行为的法律后果。
　　４．强制作用。法的强制作用，亦即法的强制性，表现在：法为保障自己得以充分实现，运用国家强制力制裁、惩罚违法行为。
　　５．教育作用。法的教育作用表现在：通过法律的实施，法律规范对人们今后的行为发生直接或间接的诱导影响。
　　
（二）法的社会作用 (698)
法的社会作用是法为实现一定的社会目的（尤其是维护一定阶级的社会关系和社会秩序）而发挥的作用。按照马克思主义法学观点看，在阶级对立的社会中，法的社会作用大体上表现在两个主要方面：
　　１．法在维护阶级统治方面的作用
　　（１）调整统治阶级与被统治阶级之间的关系。
　　（２）调整统治阶级内部的关系。
　　（３）调整统治阶级与其同盟者之间的关系。
　　２．法在执行社会公共事务方面的作用
　　社会公共事务是相对于纯粹的政治活动而言的一类社会活动。其特征是：这些事务的直接目的并不表现为维护政治统治，而在客观上对全社会的一切成员均有利，具有“公益性”。调整社会公共事务的法律，在主要方面体现着社会性（非政治性），但按照马克思主义法学的观点：它在本质上与法在维护阶级统治方面的作用并不矛盾。因为，至少从统治阶级的角度看，调整和维护社会公共事务方面的法律，在根本上与维护政治统治是一致的。
　　
（三）正确认识法的作用 (598)
   1.法的作用的重要性
　　在法律社会中，法的作用是不容低估的：法以其独特的方式对人类生活发生着重要的影响：首先，自从有了国家之后，法律在人类社会中扮演的角色愈来愈重要，逐渐代替了宗教、道德、习俗等社会规范在调整人们的行为和社会关系中原有的影响力，成为最主要的社会调整手段。其次，法律是社会运动和发展的最重要的稳定和平衡的工具，它以其稳定性和可预测性为激变的社会生活确立相对稳固的规范基矗第三，法律具有其他社会规范所不具有的优点，例如它的国家强制性、权威性、公开性、程序性等等。
　　２．法的作用的有限性
　　法并非无所不能，它也有其有限性，表现在：
　　１）法只是众多社会调整手段中的一种。
　　２）法作用的范围不是无限的，而是有限的。
　　３）法自身特点而产生的有限性。

B
试论法律行为的社会控制
http://www.chinaue.com/html/2005-11/200511301412392425.htm

法治社会也必然要求它的成员遵守法律法规。只有在社会大多数成员都能够守法的条件下，社会本身才能正常运行，这是显而易见的。

但是，在社会生活中，人们之所以服从并遵守法律，其动机却是很不相同的。

概言之，有三类不同的守法动机，一是行为人出于对某种外在因素的考虑，如出于畏惧和避免惩罚、出于社会压力、出于追求个人利益寻求社会报偿的功利目的等而守法；二是行为人出于习惯而守法；三是行为人出于对法律的高度认同而守法。

第一二类守法动机策动下的守法行为均是外部原因所致，行为人并不是真正地因信服和尊重法律而守法，这种守法行为具有功利性、被迫性与盲目性。一旦这些外部原因消失，守法行为也是不复存在了。只有第三类守法动机驱动的守法行为才是行为人出于对法律的信念和良知而自觉并主动地遵守法律，因而是一种理想的守法状态。

法律社会化不仅要求社会成员的实际行为或外显行为与法律的要求一致，更为重要的是要求社会成员把法律规范内化于自己的主观意识之中、成为自己价值观念的组成部分。这样，由法律规则、法律原则和法律概念组成的法律规范便从国家的外在宣告转化成为社会成员的内在行为动机，从客观的行为模式转化成为社会成员的主观行为标准，法律所体现的原则、精神和价值获得了社会成员的高度认同。于是，遵守法律规范就不再是迫不得已而为之的行为，人们也就不再把守法看成一种负担，而是看作自己生活方式的内容之一，看作是自己作为社会成员所应尽的道德义务。　　

法律社会化的根本目的在于，塑造健康的社会理想的法律人格。所谓法律人格，是指个人在法律社会化过程中，由于法律规范（包括规则、原则、概念）、法律价值和法律精神内化为个人的思想、意识和观念之中而形成的比较稳定的、定型化的、具有法的属性或因素的心理特质和性格特征的总体。换句话说，法律人格就是个人在法律社会化过程中逐渐成熟且模式化了的法律思维方式和法律行为方式的总和。

任何性质的法律社会化，都自始至终以理想的法律人格的培养与塑造为目标。但所谓理想的法律人格绝不是超历史、超阶级的，它指的是符合特定社会统治阶级的根本利益，因而为统治阶级所许可、所期待并体现着该社会法的精神和价值的法律人格。　　
（1）主体意识。个人都自己意识到自己的人身是自由的，与他人不存在任何形式的人身占有或人身依附关系，自己完全能够为自我作主进行行为选择，即意识到自己具有独立的人格和地位。这种主体意识表现在政治生活与法律生活中，就是公民意识。具有这种意识的人确知并相信自己就是政治生活与法律生活的参与者，享有政治上和法律上的权利，同时也必须履行政治上和法律上的义务。　　
（2）权利意识。个人既然承认自己是社会的主人，是社会活动的主体和社会关系的参与者，他也就必然会了解并坚信自己所具有的权利，并通过主动积极的行为选择努力地行使权利，实现自己的正当利益要求。同时，作为社会活动的主体，他在意识到并努力实现其权利的同时，也意识到自己还必须向社会和他人履行特定的义务。在法治社会中，既不允许只享受权利而不履行义务的特权现象存在，也不允许只尽义务而不准享受权利的奴役现象有安身立命之所。　　
（3）责任意识。个人对自己出于自愿选择而作出的行为负责，并自觉主动地承担由此而来的后果，而不是故意推脱和逃避行为的责任或责任转嫁于他人。正如有些学者所指出的，“人格是能负责任的人。不能感觉到责任的人不是人格。”“由于人格具有区别自己和他人的自我意识，由于它同活动状况结合在一起而自觉地支配自己的身体，因而它是能够在某种意义的联系中把自己的一切活动统一起来的、自由的、有个性的存在。正因为如此，它又是能够在共同体中生活、发挥一定作用

C
人的性格是怎样形成的
http://www.sport.org.cn/quanmin/ys/kj/2004-11-04/376264.html

   性格是怎样发展成熟的呢？它要受到哪些因素的影响？或者它有无变化？

　　这些是心理学研究的一个重要方面，也是心理学爱好者所关心的问题。性格的发展、形成及变化，和人的遗传、环境等因素有着密切的关系。

　　遗传因素通过什么途径来影响人的性格？这是一个非常复杂而争议颇大的问题。一般理论都倾向认为，遗传因素通过气质和智力而影响人的性格。在遗传因素的作用形成的气质，按照自己的活动方式，使性格具有独特的色彩。

　　例如同样是助人为乐的性格特征，多血质的人在帮助人时动作敏捷、热情溢于言表，而粘液质的人则沉着冷静，情感蕴含在心。气质为人的高级神经活动类型所决定，所以，一开始气质就影响性格形成和发展速度。

　　遗传因素对智力的影响，早已为詹森研究证明了。不论儿童是由生身父母还是由收养或寄养家庭抚养，他们和生身父母之间在智商上总有显著的相关。詹森把此归因于遗传对智力的影响。进而言之，智力和性格都受高级神经活动的特性和类型的影响，而智力对人性格形成是有作用的。这作用在人的发展过程中显示出来。

　　人们运用自己的聪明才智，掌握相应的知识和技能，冷静地审时度势，使自己的行为符合客观规律，这样就会促使自己勇于克服困难，在艰难险阻中表现出自觉、大胆、果断和坚毅等良好的性格特征。因此大凡政治家、发明家、作家、艺术家，虽然从事不同的职业，但他们都兼有高度发达的智力、创造力和优良的性格特征。

　　性格不但受遗传因素的影响，更为重要的是，环境是性格发展形成的一个决定性因素。环境的作用主要是通过家庭、学校、社会活动圈子以及工作实践来发生效应的。

　　性格的成熟是相对的，绝对的成熟是不存在的。从人所处环境的变化不定来讲，性格也有一定变化，但是，除非较大刺激(比如失恋、对自己重要的人发生意外、重大失败或挫折等)，一个人的性格一旦形成也就基本稳定不变。

D
一些讨论
http://forums.philosophyforums.c ... t=289382#post289382

Ｅ,http://web311.pavilion.net/USAkingML.htm
[背景] In November, 1962, Martin Luther King was arrested and sent to prison for demonstrating against segregation in Birmingham, Alabama. While King was in prison he was criticised by a group of clergymen from Alabama who described him as a political extremist. King wrote a letter to the clergymen explaining his actions.

I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist? An extremist for love, truth and goodness.

There are two types of laws: just and unjust. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal". Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.
[这一段适合两个题目。Issue178，对于法律能不能改变人性，和法律本身的性质有关。Issue17，just and unjust laws.]
I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over his injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire.
[大多数同学写赞成反抗不公正法律，这里有个反对的思路。]

Ｆ,Encarta

Law is not completely a matter of human enactment; it also includes natural law. The best-known version of this view, that God's law is supreme, has had considerable influence in the United States and other Western societies. The civil rights movement, for example, was at least partially inspired by the belief in natural law. Such a belief seems implicit in the view that law should serve to promote human dignity, as for instance by the enforcement of equal rights for all. Muslim societies also embrace a kind of natural law, which is closely linked to the religion of Islam.

Natural Law (ethics), in ethical philosophy, theology, law, and social theory, a set of principles, based on what are assumed to be the permanent characteristics of human nature, that can serve as a standard for evaluating conduct and civil laws. It is considered fundamentally unchanging and universally applicable. Because of the ambiguity of the word nature, the meaning of natural varies. Thus, natural law may be considered an ideal to which humanity aspires or a general fact, the way human beings usually act. Natural law is contrasted with positive law, the enactments of civil society.
[对于宗教和法律紧密结合的国家和地区,Natural Law的作用和对于我们普通理解的法律的影响]

Ｇ相关阅读
Source: Paine, Thomas. Rights of Man, Common Sense, and Other Political Writings. © 1995. Reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press.

From Rights of Man
Anglo-American political philosopher Thomas Paine wrote the treatise Rights of Man (1791-1792) as a reaction to British statesman Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). Burke argued that France should have reformed its existing government instead of undergoing a revolutionary upheaval. In contrast, Paine saw the French Revolution as an opportunity to fashion a new European government along the same lines as the fledgling democracy in the United States. In this excerpt from part two of Rights of Man, Paine asserts that the more perfect a society becomes, the less government is needed to uphold the rights to which each individual is naturally entitled.

From Rights of Man

By Thomas Paine

CHAPTER I

of society and civilization

Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependance and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost every thing which is ascribed to government.

To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants; and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a center.

But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society, by a diversity of wants, which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.

If we examine, with attention, into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of his wants, and the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover, that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.

Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to shew, that every thing which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.

For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American war, and to a longer period in several of the American States, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defence, to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet during this interval, order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.

So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, that it acts by a contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organization which it had committed to its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts through its medium. When men, as well from natural instinct, as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilized life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so naturally a creature of society, that it is almost impossible to put him out of it.

Formal government makes but a small part of civilized life; and when even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a thing more in name and idea, than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental principles of society and civilization—to the common usage universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained—to the unceasing circulation of interest, which, passing through its million channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilized man—it is to these things, infinitely more than to any thing which even the best instituted government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual and of the whole depends.

The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the reason of the case, that the expences of them increase in the proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilized life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same. If we consider what the principles are that first condense men into society, and what the motives that regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each other.

Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of consistency than he is aware, or that governments would wish him to believe. All the great laws of society are laws of nature. Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals, or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. They are followed and obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose.

But how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of being ingrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for itself, and acts by partialities of favour and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent.

If we look back to the riots and tumults, which at various times have happened in England, we shall find, that they did not proceed from the want of a government, but that government was itself the generating cause; instead of consolidating society it divided it; it deprived it of its natural cohesion, and engendered discontents and disorders, which otherwise would not have existed. In those associations which men promiscuously form for the purpose of trade, or of any concern, in which government is totally out of the question, and in which they act merely on the principles of society, we see how naturally the various parties unite; and this shews, by comparison, that governments, so far from being always the cause or means of order, are often the destruction of it. The riots of 1780 had no other source than the remains of those prejudices, which the government itself had encouraged. But with respect to England there are also other causes.

Excess and inequality of taxation, however disguised in the means, never fail to appear in their effects. As a great mass of the community are thrown thereby into poverty and discontent, they are constantly on the brink of commotion; and, deprived, as they unfortunately are, of the means of information, are easily heated to outrage. Whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is always want of happiness. It shews that something is wrong in the system of government, that injures the felicity by which society is to be preserved.

But as fact is superior to reasoning, the instance of America presents itself to confirm these observations.—If there is a country in the world, where concord, according to common calculation, would be least expected, it is America. Made up, as it is, of people from different nations, accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable; but by the simple operation of constructing government on the principles of society and the rights of man, every difficulty retires, and all the parts are brought into cordial unison. There, the poor are not oppressed, the rich are not privileged. Industry is not mortified by the splendid extravagance of a court rioting at its expence. Their taxes are few, because their government is just; and as there is nothing to render them wretched, there is nothing to engender riots and tumults.

A metaphysical man, like Mr Burke, would have tortured his invention to discover how such a people could be governed. He would have supposed that some must be managed by fraud, others by force, and all by some contrivance; that genius must be hired to impose upon ignorance, and shew and parade to fascinate the vulgar. Lost in the abundance of his researches, he would have resolved and re-resolved, and finally overlooked the plain and easy road that lay directly before him.

One of the great advantages of the American revolution has been, that it led to a discovery of the principles, and laid open the imposition of governments. All the revolutions till then had been worked within the atmosphere of a court, and never on the great floor of a nation. The parties were always of the class of courtiers; and whatever was their rage for reformation, they carefully preserved the fraud of the profession.

In all cases they took care to represent government as a thing made up of mysteries, which only themselves understood; and they hid from the understanding of the nation, the only thing that was beneficial to know, namely, That government is nothing more than a national association acting on the principles of society.

Having thus endeavoured to shew, that the social and civilized state of man is capable of performing within itself, almost every thing necessary to its protection and government, it will be proper, on the other hand, to take a review of the present old governments, and examine whether their principles and practice are correspondent thereto.

[ 本帖最后由 yogurt4 于 2006-2-1 20:44 编辑 ]

作者: Alcoray 时间: 2006-1-30 20:44:45 标题: 偶来看看....

作者: tingting_t 时间: 2006-1-30 21:18:14

怎么好像没有人关心的样子~~

作者: 果小冻 时间: 2006-1-30 21:22:27

指教
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由果小冻于 2006-2-1 12:34 编辑 ]

作者: monalisa 时间: 2006-1-30 21:26:32

对,占位~~~~~~~

作者: sallyxindu 时间: 2006-1-30 21:27:10

我也占位，呵呵，太棒了这个活动

作者: 黑崎猫猫 时间: 2006-1-30 21:39:53

支持~~

作者: cean 时间: 2006-1-30 22:04:58

支持
正在看

作者: kito9695 时间: 2006-1-30 22:42:26

占座~~晚了

作者: lorraineye 时间: 2006-1-30 22:42:52

支持，占位～～何时截止？

作者: qingwan 时间: 2006-1-30 23:22:42

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

我的思路很简单，完全赞成命题，把命题看成三部分，中间每一部分用一段论述。
第一部分从法律的作用来说法律能控制人们的行为，就是为什么人们能够遵守法律？
第二部分法律不能改变人的本性。本性是由多方面形成的。举了一个贪污的例子。（自我感觉这个例子和前面的论述衔接不上）
第三部分法律不能改变人的感情和想法。感情举的是杀人犯的例子，想法举的是伐木的例子。

第一次写，欢迎猛砸！

[ 本帖最后由 qingwan 于 2006-2-1 22:08 编辑 ]

作者: dinddind2003 时间: 2006-1-30 23:28:23

难得过年了楼主还能想到我们，支持同主题。最后大家新年好

作者: zyhoo 时间: 2006-1-31 01:46:01

太好了！每天一个主题吗？时间不多了啊

作者: yuvi 时间: 2006-1-31 17:15:34

先支持~再参与~ ^_^

作者: jingjingtous 时间: 2006-1-31 20:31:15

挺好的，谢谢！

作者: adugdu 时间: 2006-1-31 22:34:57

赶快先占个座~~顶~!!

作者: avex 时间: 2006-1-31 23:13:35

顶

作者: 智恩 时间: 2006-2-1 00:44:30

辛苦yaoyao了
感谢！

作者: cean 时间: 2006-2-1 18:03:31

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

欢迎赐教
开始互改!
因为对法律不熟悉

写的是支持的思路

三句话分别支持
提出了一点点建议

阅读补充资料ING

[ 本帖最后由 cean 于 2006-2-1 23:26 编辑 ]

作者: boyjim 时间: 2006-2-1 18:35:32

11支持哈~~~

作者: yogurt4 时间: 2006-2-1 20:46:13

２楼更新了资料

大家不要只给连接，可以谈一下自己的思路，并把提纲贴出来
我们会优先看的说:p

作者: bunnymz2005 时间: 2006-2-1 21:00:35

好的，才发现~~~

作者: chn_tommy 时间: 2006-2-1 21:34:47

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
请指教

作者: esmeiras 时间: 2006-2-1 21:50:10

猛赞yaoyao 姐姐!

现在考作文的孩子真是幸福啊....~~

作者: victoriazhizhi 时间: 2006-2-1 23:06:36

本来要抢沙发的
结果网坏了2天
就这么热闹了
支持一个

作者: savagett 时间: 2006-2-1 23:08:35

原帖由 boyjim 于 2006-2-1 18:35 发表
11支持哈~~~

这个.....大爱啊....我说头像上的went~~~~~!!~~
HC一下

占了座来填上 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
思路每什么创新，就是跟着提示走的，反对前半句，同一后两句，所以法律不是万能的，但我们要敬畏法律。

[ 本帖最后由 savagett 于 2006-2-3 00:20 编辑 ]

作者: myown5891 时间: 2006-2-1 23:11:53 标题: 占位

作者: savagett 时间: 2006-2-3 00:20:32

填上作为了,顶一下..那么好的活动..

作者: 宝贝小猪 时间: 2006-2-3 10:35:14

偶终于回来啦
嘿嘿，也占一个的说

作者: cpafire 时间: 2006-2-3 18:17:15

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

提纲：完全不同意
1，好法律的正面作用
2 。坏法律的反面作用

作者: yogurt4 时间: 2006-2-3 19:14:54

原帖由 cpafire 于 2006-2-3 18:17 发表

提纲：完全不同意
1，好法律的正面作用
2 。坏法律的反面作用

提纲可以再具体点;)

作者: bcomer 时间: 2006-2-3 19:19:52

占坐

作者: yogurt4 时间: 2006-2-3 23:48:23

up

作者: cute 时间: 2006-2-4 18:43:11 标题: 发一篇吧，呵呵没计时，多谢拍教！

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D1#pid1768048934
提纲：
1.法律因为要改造和规范人类行为而制定，归根到底是改造人心。
2.法律无处不在，人们通过法律养成习惯
3.通过法律对犯人改造

作者: paopaofyn 时间: 2006-2-4 20:20:33

研究官方范文中
好东西，先占座:)

作者: vililytan 时间: 2006-2-5 12:04:19 标题: issue178 我的第一篇issue,请多拍砖.

谢谢。:)
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

提纲：
全肯定
1 不触及人们最基本的希望时，人们会出于对法律的敬畏而受法律的限制。
2 法律和天性无关：天性有别的决定因素，而任何法律下人们的天性都呈现相同的类型。
3 法律无法改变信仰和思想.反例是中国的法律改变封建旧思想，但也可能是人类进步引发的。

问题:
It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people’s behavior 是指通过这样的法律不难，还是指用这样的法律限制人们的行为。

格式应该对了吧？不好意思，请大家见谅。:$

[ 本帖最后由 vililytan 于 2006-2-5 18:29 编辑 ]

作者: yogurt4 时间: 2006-2-6 04:45:16

原帖由 lorraineye 于 2006-1-30 22:42 发表
支持，占位～～何时截止？

整个同主题活动一直有效
时间上大概回持续1个多月^^

作者: yogurt4 时间: 2006-2-6 04:46:26

原帖由 zyhoo 于 2006-1-31 01:46 发表
太好了！每天一个主题吗？时间不多了啊

请看同主题宣传的说明
周一ISSUE,周四ARGUMENT
目前是每周两期

作者: nknoback 时间: 2006-2-6 16:00:40 标题: issue178 同主题写作，欢迎拍砖

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=402773&extra=

法律能够影响人们的心理，但没有道德和有针对性的教育作用大。
提纲：
1、法律能规范人们的行为，并影响人们的心理
2、法律能警告人们，但不能从根本上解决人们的本性。
3、道德和又针对性的教育能够改变人们的思想和观念。

作者: liyan1800426 时间: 2006-2-6 20:42:28 标题: 支持啊！希望斑竹坚持下去，我天天都会来顶！

作者: tjhhdldut2005 时间: 2006-2-6 23:21:30

年过完了，该写作文了！

作者: fmac97 时间: 2006-2-8 14:42:45

不错！

作者: paopaofyn 时间: 2006-2-9 17:02:11

占座

作者: jonathan306 时间: 2006-2-9 20:53:15 标题: 我是新手，希望大家热情来拍我！谢谢！

issue178"It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds."
提纲
1、法律基本目的是约束人们的行为，维护社会稳定和平衡。
2、法律改变不了人们的本性。举人类贪婪的例子。
3、保留地同意法律改变不了人们的感情和思想。但是某种程度上，法律可以教育、引导人们的思想。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D103

作者: 仙女 时间: 2006-2-9 22:26:25

UP;)

作者: jonathan306 时间: 2006-2-10 00:12:17 标题: 格式有缺陷，汗……支持斑竹！维护gter良好风貌！

作者: shadowmirror 时间: 2006-2-10 21:32:45

支持一下
一定要写的~~:rolleyes:

作者: videojeff 时间: 2006-2-11 19:10:20

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
第一次写这个

作者: dzg2006 时间: 2006-2-11 20:58:59

谢谢这么详实的分析。uppppppppppp

作者: ChunyanLi2005 时间: 2006-2-11 21:41:14 标题: 支持！请大家多指教！

issue178
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

作者: cuoba 时间: 2006-2-12 11:06:30

谢谢各位～～活活
position: agree
B1: 法律确实可以控制人们的行为，但是只有法律和教育结合才能创造一个和谐社会
B2：人的思想是无疆界的，举例证明法律不可以控制思想
B3：从科学的角度证明人的本性的形成，证明法律不可能彻底改变人的本性

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D103

作者: atalbert9 时间: 2006-2-12 21:04:23

先占座

作者: tinaty 时间: 2006-2-12 23:14:51

我也想加入，可以吧？

作者: A_koala198597 时间: 2006-2-14 21:12:23

提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: xuhaimeng 时间: 2006-2-16 10:16:36 标题: 占座

作者: 含羞草2006 时间: 2006-2-17 19:03:51 标题: 我也要加入

大家好

作者: mclgod 时间: 2006-2-18 21:30:39

占座~~晚了

作者: lpjiang007 时间: 2006-2-19 14:26:20

好, 密切关注, 快考作文了

作者: 宝贝小猪 时间: 2006-2-21 15:44:53 标题: 问11 jj

jj，偶刚才看了一下第一期同主题（呵呵，偶开始写同主题啦），有一些疑问：
我上xdf的时候老师说issue的写作没有完全赞成也没有完全反对的，都是大正小负或者是大负小正，还说这样就能体现出issue体现正反论证的这一个特点，但是这次同主题你就是完全赞同的写法，所以不知道是不是不能写完全赞同那种，或者是说写了考官会觉得你想法比较片面而影响得分？

作者: sweetpigeon 时间: 2006-2-23 16:56:24 标题: 支持

十分支持

作者: shanne 时间: 2006-2-24 19:43:53 标题: 第一篇issue，欢迎拍砖

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

写的时候没有参考他人思路，写的很痛苦啊，现在还是觉得人多力量大啊。希望大家多批评

作者: xiangninggreen 时间: 2006-2-28 16:02:30

提示: 作者被禁止或删除内容自动屏蔽

作者: nicky_bide_pan 时间: 2006-3-2 14:15:30 标题: Issue178 法律是否能改变人们的思想

欢迎拍，请留链，必回拍，同努力！

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

部分同意部分反对
1) 法律确实能够控制人们的行为
2) 法律并不干涉人性，更谈不上改善人性
3) 法律可以潜移默化的改变人们的思想

作者: cheweijia 时间: 2006-3-3 19:01:33

很好的帖子呀站一个

作者: chengduman 时间: 2006-3-6 22:46:39 标题: 我写的提纲

有保留的反对

a. laws规范了人们的行为，使社会避免陷入混乱

b. legislation确实能逐渐改变one's heart & mind (人权宣言 & 解放黑奴宣言)

c. 通过其他手段亦可改变heart & mind, 如教育和媒体宣传

作者: davidgdw 时间: 2006-3-7 09:20:25

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

请大家拍砖！：）

作者: gxw2008 时间: 2006-3-15 19:13:33 标题: 占位

来晚了！ 555

作者: cug_xxj 时间: 2006-3-25 16:04:23

我是一个新手，请教各位高人怎样入门GRE写作

作者: linmusoccer 时间: 2006-3-25 16:15:21

支持啊，好东西
还有就是也喜欢神话！

作者: nostrum 时间: 2006-3-26 01:10:31

占位，有点太晚了

作者: elfinnie 时间: 2006-3-26 15:08:09

辛苦了，感谢！！！

作者: wh811006 时间: 2006-3-28 19:23:58

支持支持 6月就要考了，好荒

作者: litney 时间: 2006-4-1 17:19:39

感觉很受用啊，谢谢拉
以后多来这里看看

作者: coward 时间: 2006-7-13 12:46:33

excellent

作者: hydra35 时间: 2006-7-20 14:22:41

呵呵，跟着同主题练，收获一定会很多的～

作者: hoogw2000 时间: 2006-8-8 10:25:38 标题: hoogw2000 response

I would like to say that laws have the power, which could change the people’s mind, but not always. The power of the laws has its limit, it depends on what the situation is. In some cases, laws change not only what people doing, but also what people think. However, in other cases, laws have change only what people behavior, have do nothing on what people think.
I was wondering that the people who lives in an autocratic country, where the dictator rules the everything of the country. Did the nature or mind of those people different from the people who live in a democratic country? Did the autocratic laws change what the people think? The answer was not simply YES or NO. The power of the autocratic laws did change the mind of the people, but it has the limits. A good example in the autocratic country is the people lacks of the freedom of publishing their ideas, moreover, the people don’t have the concept and will about the election. The autocratic government instills the belief and moral standard into its people from their childhood by laws, by educations. The teachers in autocratic country could not teach thing that contrary to the dictator’s wish or disclose the weakness and failure of the authorities, otherwise, the teacher will be banished, dismissed, even send into jail. However, I don’t think the sever laws change these teacher’s mind. Because freedom of publish their ideas is the inborn human right, as well as they think they are right in mind. Laws have done nothing on their mind. Even they are in jail, they still insist that they have done nothing wrong.
However, this is not always the cases. The autocratic laws sometimes do have effect to change the people’s mind. For instance, the people in autocratic country, most of them do not have the concept and wish of election. The legislation system do not provide any election right or being elected right to anybody. They don’t know they should have the election right which has been taken away. So the laws systems in these countries did clean their people’s mind that they believe that they were born without the election right. When they grow up, they were taught that they should not claim their election right. The result is they don’t have any concept about their election right in their minds.
I would say that, laws definitely have effect on people’s mind, but the effect is limited depends on the different situations. Some laws do have the power to change the mind of the people, these laws became the tools by which the dictator rules the country.

作者: hey_maggie 时间: 2006-9-23 23:32:15

收获！文章准备得太充分了！

欢迎光临寄托家园留学论坛 (https://bbs.gter.net/)