[i习作temp] issue17 [戮力同心] by dacy [复制链接]

Dacy
UID：2272369

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 150
注册时间: 2006-11-11
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-1 23:22:38 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

a. 法律的公正与不公正不能一概而论
b. 违反法律将造成社会混乱
c. 通过和平的方法通知立法机构修改法律也可以达到通过违反法律所要实现的目标。

Issue 17

The speaker claims that there are two types of law, just and unjust, and every individual should obey the just laws, disobey and resist unjust laws. I disagree with this statement for the reason that it is so absolute in two aspects. First, we can not simply judge a law is just or unjust; Second, I don’t think it is the suitable way to disobey so-called unjust law.

To begin with, in my point of view, the category of a law might differ in different individuals’ eyes. In short, it depends on individuals’ interest. The fairness of a law in eyes of one group of people may be just, while in opposite group of people may be unjust. For instance, two people engage in a lawsuit; the law in the eyes of the people who win the lawsuit might be just, but for the people who lose, it might be unjust law. Therefore, the fairness of a law cannot be approved by all the people because in many cases it can only benefits a part of people but hurt another part of people’s interests.
Through the discuss above, we can conclude that if all the people disobey the law just because they think this law is unjust, then our society will finally get into a chaotic situation which is not we expected. Moreover, it will not help to cultivate the people’s awareness of complying with the law. Besides, there has another contention suggest that people should not to violate unjust law. It is the punishment of violating the law. Therefore, in my point of view, everyone in our society should comply the laws; by doing so, our society will be well-regulated.

As I see it, our final destination of disobey the unjust laws is hoping these laws not affect our interests. According to the author’s statement, he implies that to reach this purpose, violation of the law is a suitable way. However, we can conclude from the discussion of paragraph 3 that disobeying the law is not a best way for it might cause lots of social problems. In my point of view, we can reach this purpose by inform legislature to amend the laws. The law is not curved on the stone, but must reflect the need of a society; for example, United States has already added 27 amendments into its constitution. There have many methods to inform the legislatures to modify the laws which we think unjust, such as writing letters, demonstration or strike, which would also attain our destination, at the same time minimizing our losses.

To sum up, because the category of a law differs in different interest groups, disobeying the law one think unjust is unreasonable, for the reason that it will lead our societies to be chaotic. If we think a law is unjust to our interest, we should inform the legislatures in a more reasonable and civilized way, instead of disobeying the law, for the reason that disobeying any law will cause problem of society, jeopardize others interest and ourselves will be punished by the law.

回应
0

使用道具举报

jiangzuodong
UID：2371192

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 288
注册时间: 2007-7-28
精华: 0
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2007-8-6 23:37:38 |只看该作者

希望继续讨论

a. 法律的公正与不公正不能一概而论(它们也没有一概而论啊)
b. 违反法律将造成社会混乱
c. 通过和平的方法通知立法机构修改法律也可以达到通过违反法律所要实现的目标。
The speaker claims that there are two types of law, just and unjust, and every individual should obey the just laws, disobey and resist unjust laws. I disagree with this statement for the reason that it is so absolute in two aspects. First, we can not simply judge a law is（去掉） just or unjust; Second, I don’t think it is the （a）suitable way to disobey so-called unjust law.

To begin with, in my point of view, the category of a law might differ in different individuals’ eyes. In short, it depends on individuals’ interest. The fairness of a law in eyes of one group of people may be just, while in opposite group of people may be unjust. For instance, two people engage in a lawsuit; the law in the eyes of the people who win the lawsuit might be just, but for the people who lose, it might be unjust law.(输了官司的人会埋怨法律吗，还是埋怨法官) Therefore, the fairness of a law cannot be approved by all the people because in many cases it can only benefits a part of people but hurt another part of people’s interests. （这段例子可以举，环境保护的法律对民众有益，却损害相关的工厂和企业的利益）
Through the discuss above, we can conclude that if all the people disobey the law just because they think this law is unjust, then our society will finally get into a chaotic situation which is not（这句话有语病） we expected. Moreover, it will not help to cultivate the people’s awareness of complying with the law. Besides, there has another contention suggest that people should not to violate unjust law. It is the punishment of violating the law. Therefore, in my point of view, everyone in our society should comply the laws; by doing so, our society will be well-regulated.

As I see it, our final destination of disobey the unjust laws is hoping these laws not （不能这么把not放在这）affect our interests. According to the author’s statement, he implies that to reach this purpose, violation of the law is a suitable way. However, we can conclude from the discussion of paragraph 3（坚决不能用阿拉伯数字） that disobeying the law is not a best way for it might cause lots of social problems. In my point of view, we can reach this purpose by inform legislature to amend the laws. The law is not curved on the stone, but must reflect the need of a society; for example,（the ） United States has already added 27 amendments into its constitution. There(不能这么写) have many methods to inform the legislatures to modify the laws which we think unjust, such as writing letters, demonstration or strike, which would also attain our destination, at the same time minimizing our losses.

To sum up, because the category of a law differs in different interest groups, disobeying the law one think unjust is unreasonable, for the reason that it will lead our societies to be chaotic. If we think a law is unjust to our interest, we should inform the legislatures in a more reasonable and civilized way, instead of disobeying the law, for the reason that disobeying any law will cause problem of society, jeopardize others interest and ourselves will be punished by the law.
你的论证思路基本和范文差不多，语言错误有些很严重啊，思路好固然重要，语言的小错误会导致严重后果啊。字数能多多点就好了，我看过你对我文章的修改，不知你花多长时间看完。我那篇文章是特意要抛开范文的思路去写的，public 是大众的意思就是代表大部分人，不是大伙， “公正”被定义为符合大众利益的法律，我觉得是可以的，因为我们可以说不能把法律分为两个，但当然也可以说可以分，那么分的时候对公正不公正的定义完全可以自己下，自圆其说就可以了。公正是符合大众，也就是大多数人认为公正那么就可以说这个法律公正了。
我觉得这是我对这个题目的创新，你说不够深入，所以希望我们继续讨论

使用道具举报