issue17 追星特训之Terminology

apolloxpUID：156355

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."

提纲：
1。不遵守自认为unjust的法律实际上缺乏法理上的基础。法律不会给与任何人此种权力，更谈不上responsibility了
2。每个人都只遵守自认为just的法律，不可避免与别人发生对立，从而危及社会和谐与稳定。因此，此种responsibility是缺乏可行性作为根基的
3。对付公认的unjust laws的办法应是更改法律本身


The speaker asserts that each individual in a society has a responsibility to disobey and resist the unjust ones. However, as far as I am concerned, such responsibility is neither jurally valid nor practically feasible and thus does not exist. People often try to modify the laws instead of passively disobeying the unjust laws.

To begin with, citizens are never authorized by the laws to disobey and resist it. Therefore, any attempts to offend the laws are not allowed and lose validity whether these are just laws and unjust laws. Laws are established to regulate and set limitation for people's behaviors so as to maintain the stability of the society. This is almost always the case whether in contemporary society or in the ancient society, in authoritative countries or in democratic countries. It is for this reason that no laws that ever exist would entitle the individuals with the rights of disobedience and resistance. Such laws, if ever existed, make possible for people to choose freely whether to obey the laws or disobey them regardless of what are codified and therefore such laws exist in name only. In a sense, individuals never enjoy the jural rights to disobey and resist laws, whether just or unjust, let alone the responsibility.

In addition, the responsibility to resist "unjust" laws lack feasibility as its foundation. There does not exist a uniformed standard of justice for everyone because judgement of what is just often gained from personal experience, religious belief and social background, varying from one person to person. Moreover, when it involves the problem of economic interests, people's opinions may sharply contradict one another. For example, when domestic industries call for higher tariff so as to survive through the competition with overseas companies which can provide cheaper and better goods, they may consider it just to do so. On the other hand, native customers may find it unjust because they are obliged to spend more money for what they want. In this case, the justice of the domestic industries does not accord with that of the native customers because they stand on different standpoints. When everyone only observes laws that he/she thinks are just, social harmony and stability are threatened. Therefore, it is not practical that every people in a society obey what he/she thinks are just laws and disobey what are considered unjust laws.

However, the fact that individuals do not have the responsibility to disobey what they think are unjust laws does not necessarily follow that individuals can do nothing to protect themselves from the detrimental done by unjust laws. When certain laws are widely acknowledged as unjust and harm the interests of most of the citizens in the society, people usually attempt to modify these laws. In democratic society, people have legal assess to express their wills through demonstration and realize such wills through election. In authoritative countries, however, ordinary people usually do not have the legal approach to modify the unjust laws. If the governors fail to perceive their people's wills, a revolution may break out to overturn the current regime and abolish the unjust laws. In a sense, instead of mere obedience and resistance to the unjust laws, people have more initiative and effective approaches to deal with them.

To conclude, individuals do not have the responsibility to disobey the unjust laws and resist it. However, they can do something to change the laws themselves and solve the problem radically.

poohUID：146994

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."

提纲：
1。不遵守自认为unjust的法律实际上缺乏法理上的基础。法律不会给与任何人此种权力，更谈不上responsibility了
2。每个人都只遵守自认为just的法律，不可避免与别人发生对立，从而危及社会和谐与稳定。因此，此种responsibility是缺乏可行性作为根基的
3。对付公认的unjust laws的办法应是更改法律本身


The speaker asserts that each individual in a society has a responsibility to disobey and resist the unjust ones. However, as far as I am concerned, such responsibility is neither jurally valid nor practically feasible and thus does not exist. People often try to modify the laws instead of passively (passively不合适，disobey 显然不是被动的） disobeying the unjust laws.我认为最后这句不完全符合实际，因为现实中有人抵抗law, 作为thesis，最好直接说出你在这个问题上的看法）

To begin with, citizens are never authorized by the laws to disobey and resist it. Therefore, any attempts to offend the laws are not allowed and lose validity whether these are just laws and unjust laws. Laws are established to regulate and set limitation for people's behaviors so as to maintain the stability of the society. This is almost always the case whether in contemporary society or in the ancient society, in authoritative countries or in democratic countries. It is for this reason that no laws that ever exist would entitle the individuals with the rights of disobedience and resistance. 这几句好像在重复说一个事情，缺少例子Such laws, if ever existed, make possible for people to choose freely whether to obey the laws or disobey them regardless of what are codified and therefore such laws exist in name only. In a sense, individuals never enjoy the jural rights to disobey and resist laws, whether just or unjust, let alone the responsibility.

In addition, the responsibility to resist "unjust" laws lack feasibility as its foundation. There does not exist a uniformed standard of justice for everyone because judgement of what is just often gained from personal experience, religious belief and social background, varying from one person to person. Moreover, when it involves the problem of economic interests, people's opinions may sharply contradict one another. For example, when domestic industries call for higher tariff so as to survive through the competition with overseas companies which can provide cheaper and better goods, they may consider it just to do so. On the other hand, native customers may find it unjust because they are obliged to spend more money for what they want.好例子！ In this case, the justice of the domestic industries does not accord with that of the native customers because they stand on different standpoints. When everyone only observes laws that he/she thinks are just, social harmony and stability are threatened. Therefore, it is not practical that every people in a society obey what he/she thinks are just laws and disobey what are considered unjust laws.

However, the fact that individuals do not have the responsibility to disobey what they think are unjust laws does not necessarily follow that individuals can do nothing to protect themselves from the detrimental（detriments) done by unjust laws.(既然前面否认just laws ,unjust law的区分， 后面再用就不太合适了吧 When certain laws are widely acknowledged as unjust and harm the interests of most of the citizens in the society, people usually attempt to modify these laws. In democratic society, people have legal assess to express their wills through demonstration and realize such wills through election. In authoritative countries, however, ordinary people usually do not have the legal approach to modify the unjust laws. If the governors fail to perceive their people's wills, a revolution may break out to overturn the current regime and abolish the unjust laws. In a sense, instead of mere obedience and resistance to the unjust laws, people have more initiative and effective approaches to deal with them.

To conclude, individuals do not have the responsibility to disobey the unjust laws and resist it. However, they can do something to change the laws themselves and solve the problem radically.

论证很充分，行文流畅，今天见识了你的大作，学习中

KitKatUID：164708

提纲：
1。不遵守自认为unjust的法律实际上缺乏法理上的基础。法律不会给与任何人此种权力，更谈不上responsibility了
2。每个人都只遵守自认为just的法律，不可避免与别人发生对立，从而危及社会和谐与稳定。因此，此种responsibility是缺乏可行性作为根基的
3。对付公认的unjust laws的办法应是更改法律本身

我是从提纲本身来看的
3个分论点都很有力度 从逻辑上也说得通
但是 我想问问菠萝
3个分论点之间的逻辑关系呢~~~
也许是我自己logic方面有点弱
好象我就不明白body2哪来的in addtion 因为这不是并列 也不是顺承呀
还有body3 那个however是哪里来的转折
逻辑上不通呀?
困惑ing~~~

菠萝来指导解释一下哈~~
谢谢啦~

apolloxpUID：156355

People often try to modify the laws instead of passively (passively不合适，disobey 显然不是被动的） disobeying the unjust laws.我认为最后这句不完全符合实际，因为现实中有人抵抗law, 作为thesis，最好直接说出你在这个问题上的看法）

句子里面加个should。这样应该差不多吧

既然前面否认just laws ,unjust law的区分， 后面再用就不太合适了吧

虽然不存在普适的just/unjust的标准，但每个人心里都有一杆秤。当现行的法律使大多数人觉得unjust，人们就可能想办法修改法律。

把这几句添到b3里，意思是不是会清楚些

apolloxpUID：156355

最初由 KitKat 发布
[B]我是从提纲本身来看的
3个分论点都很有力度 从逻辑上也说得通
但是 我想问问菠萝
3个分论点之间的逻辑关系呢~~~
也许是我自己logic方面有点弱
好象我就不明白body2哪来的in addtion 因为这不是并列 也不是顺承呀
还有body3 那个however是哪里来的转折
逻辑上不通呀?
困惑ing~~~

菠萝来指导解释一下哈~~
谢谢啦~[/B]

1，2都是用来说此种responsibility的不存在，1是法理上，2是实践上的。我自己觉得是并列 :rolleyes:
3是提一种解决方案。至于转折。。。不太清楚。凭感觉放了个however。可能是有问题

KitKatUID：164708

最初由 apolloxp 发布
[B][QUOTE]最初由 KitKat 发布
[B]我是从提纲本身来看的
3个分论点都很有力度 从逻辑上也说得通
但是 我想问问菠萝
3个分论点之间的逻辑关系呢~~~
也许是我自己lo..

以下省略...... [/B]

又仔细研究了一下
你的意思是在开头的那个neither nor各成一段
然后一个解决问题方案~
明白了
但这样 解决方案的出台好象缺少了一些铺垫
无论是在开头提出还是后面行文
好象之前都没有提到解决或者暗示现行的状况行不通那种~~

再提个建议
说实话
我个人的习惯
写并列的东西的时候
两段的格式和思路有很高的形似度
感觉有点象排比的感觉~~
呵呵 我弱啦~~~
觉得那样文章的思路要更清晰一些~~~~~~~~

PS: 同意pooh说的 body1里面说来说去让我有点糊涂了~~~

汗啊, 自己一篇不写还跑上来指手画脚 丢人啊~~~~

imongUID：140258

The speaker asserts that each individual in a society has a responsibility to disobey and resist the unjust ones. However, as far as I am concerned, such responsibility is neither jurally valid nor practically feasible and thus 这个thus我觉得有点别扭 does not exist. People often try to modify the laws instead of passively disobeying 跟pooh意见一致 the unjust laws.

To begin with, citizens are never authorized by the laws to disobey and resist it. Therefore, 一般来说不会在很早的位置出therefore，在ts就出现therefore的写法往往多少有点问题。——经验规律仅供参考，当然不拘泥于此。any attempts to offend the laws are not allowed and lose validity whether these are just laws and unjust laws. Laws are established to regulate and set limitation 裸奔了 for people's behaviors so as to maintain the stability of the society. This is almost always the case whether in contemporary society or in the ancient society, in authoritative countries or in democratic countries.句子可以精简。in societies whether contemporary or ancient, in countries whether authoritative or democratic. 随手写一个，不一定对。 It is for this reason that no laws that ever exist（ever的话exist可能就不是原型了，另外两个that似乎有些乱了。反复强调exist强调的有点不是太好，从组织上看） would entitle the individuals with the rights of disobedience and resistance. Such laws, if ever existed, make possible for people to choose freely whether to obey the laws or disobey them regardless of what are codified and therefore such laws exist in name only. In a sense, individuals never enjoy the jural rights to disobey and resist laws, whether just or unjust, let alone the responsibility. 我觉得你的line of reasoning不够清晰。你要证明的有：responsible not exist, responsible jurally invalid, 但是这两者是不是thus的关系——我认为还不如说彼此相对。而且我一直觉得那个thus和not exist有问题。如果responsibility都not exist，还谈什么jurally invalid？

在讨论law的时候，却又专从jurally入手，未免很为取巧。但是这段话写的绕进sophistication，没看出来很清晰的线路。

如果要这样写，建议：直接从law的制定出发点入手，点明这种所谓的responsibility是不为允许的。也就是说：law的规定就是你不许disobey. 还是觉得挺乱的，FT~~~

jurally invalid 和non-existent.......也许这样处理：TS强调jurally invalid，不要提non-existent，然后到了中间来个in fact给further下去。我晕得不行了，看下面：

In addition, the responsibility to resist "unjust" laws lack feasibility as its foundation. There does not exist a uniformed standard of justice for everyone because judgement of what is just often gained（主谓一致？少了个is吧。这里可以用derive from） from personal experience, religious belief and social background, varying from one person to person（from one to another，如果是person to person就没有one）. Moreover, when it involves the problem of economic interests（when ... is involved，而且可以把后面的主句放到前面，把这个when放到后面，紧凑）, people's opinions may sharply contradict （搭配的好象不太舒服）one another. For example, when domestic industries call for higher tariff so as to survive through the competition with overseas companies which can provide cheaper and better goods, they may consider it just to do so. On the other hand, native customers may find it unjust because they are obliged to spend more money for what they want. In this case, the justice of the domestic industries does not accord with that of the native customers because they stand on different standpoints.（stand on standpoint，呵呵，可以考虑优化一下） When everyone only observes laws that he/she thinks are just, social harmony and stability are threatened. （仍然，把主句放前面，而且这个when里面的语序写的并不好）Therefore,（未必最后一句总要用therefore的，结合你的表达内容考虑？） it is not practical that every people in a society obey what he/she thinks are just laws and disobey what are considered unjust laws.

However, the fact that individuals do not have the responsibility to disobey what they think are unjust laws does not necessarily follow that individuals can do nothing to protect themselves from the detrimental done by unjust laws.（我认为这个段落的写作，如果要切实作到不偏题，就应当尽量突出和原题的联系。这个联系可以是contrast：it is more imporant people have the responsibility to propose rather than disobey，从more important和disobey两点上“绑住”，再小心的提出自己的关键字） When certain laws are widely acknowledged as unjust and harm the interests of most of the citizens in the society, people usually attempt to modify these laws. In democratic society, people have legal assess to express their wills through demonstration and realize such wills through election. In authoritative countries, however, ordinary people usually do not have the legal approach to modify the unjust laws. If the governors fail to perceive their people's wills, a revolution may break out to overturn the current regime and abolish the unjust laws. In a sense, instead of mere obedience and resistance to the unjust laws, people have more initiative and effective approaches to deal with them.

To conclude, individuals do not have the responsibility to disobey the unjust laws and resist it. However, they can do something to change the laws themselves and solve the problem radically.这里又是我说的（好像在这里还没说过？）：They can do和it is more important that they do是有区别的。一个是必要性，一个是充分性。考虑一下？

说的不一定都有道理。供参考。

对just 和unjust直接随着文章就写下来了，是和九月在Terminology的2楼里面的说法一致的。对Responsibility做出了比较深的分析，效果再议，文章本身还是很有启发的。