issue17 G-89-互助社-17日写作 高频哦

huangdaoUID：190018

Issue17 限时失败 不过努力不断

------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：50分15秒     520 words
从2005年7月17日10时11分到2005年7月17日10时25分
------题目------
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 总起
2 正义的定义
3 在民主的国家应该遵守，即使有unjust，也应该通过和平的手段纠正
4 在独裁的国家，因为无法用和平的手段纠正，只好disobey and resist
5 总结
------正文------
Were a law deemed as unjust by a single person, has the one the right to disobey and resist the law? It is ridiculous. In my view, the problem is how to define the just and unjust, and where these laws come into being. And the answer may help to solve the question at the beginning.

First of all, it is critical to consider what is just and unjust. Whether or not a law does harm to a single man or woman's right is unjust? That does not correct appropriately. Just and unjust are social concept, which combine with the legitimate profit of the individual, community, country, and even the world. Only do people consider the personal benefit to judge a law whether just or unjust is hasty. And this may result in a self-centered, anti-social character because of the mind that laws hamper his rights. Therefore, only are the just and unjust not defined to protect the individual's profit, moreover, they also refer to community, country, and the world.

However, if a law actually damages a group of people's legitimate rights, is the people have the right to disobey and resist the 'unjust' laws? I do not agree with it. In a democratic nation or society, people should use formal means to protest the maybe unjust law. Take Martin Luther King as example. Facing the unjust law towards the African people in USA, he did not claim to disobey and resist the 'unjust' laws, but choose peace methods to reveal the discontent. To manifest the discontent against the rule that the African only allowed to sit on the back of bus, King claim people do not use bus as traffic tool, and finally the government yielded. That means, in a democratic society or nation, there is no need to disobey and resist unjust laws, and other peaceful methods could be utilized to adjust the unjust ones.

On the other hand, in some country or society, like autocratic ones, the peace methods could work weakly, or even invalidly, maybe the actions, like disobey and resist, work well. In the Second World War, the Nazi Germany manifested a lot of laws to control the action of Jews, harm their profit, and even kill them. Of course, these laws are all unjust, and a lot of kind-hearted Germen lend their hands to help the people in danger. Obviously, their movements disobey the laws and even resist them, but nowadays, nearly nobody complain they illegal actions, and in Israel, their names are caved in the monument and remembered generation by generation. Therefore, in an autocratic nation, or such societies like this, to some extent the actions to disobey and resist the unjust laws are correct.

To conclude, the one should not determine whether a law just or unjust only by his own profit; then in a democratic society and nation the laws should be obeyed, the unjust laws should be adjusted through no violent methods; yet, in some kind countries or society, like autocratic ones, facing unjust laws disobey and resist may be a better choice because of no way to adjust them.

mvpzhuangUID：205051

占座

mvpzhuangUID：205051

Issue 17
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 总起
2 正义的定义(是公正，不是正义吧。)
3 在民主的国家应该遵守，即使有unjust，也应该通过和平的手段纠正
4 在独裁的国家，因为无法用和平的手段纠正，只好disobey and resist
5 总结
------正文------
Were a law deemed as unjust by a single person, has the one the right to disobey and resist the law? It is ridiculous. In my view, the problem is how to define the just and unjust, and where these laws come into being. And the answer may help to solve the question at the beginning. 你的观点是什么？同意？不同意？中立？

First of all, it is critical to consider what is just and unjust. Whether or not a law does harm to a single man or woman's right is unjust? That does not correct appropriately. Just and unjust are social concept, which combine with the legitimate profit of the individual, community, country, and even the world. Only do people consider the personal benefit to judge a law whether just or unjust is hasty. And this may result in a self-centered, anti-social character because of the mind that laws hamper his rights. Therefore, only are the just and unjust not defined to protect the individual's profit, moreover, they also refer to community, country, and the world.再说说对某些人公正的法律不一定对别人也公平。是相对的。

However,慎用此类强转折 if a law actually damages a group of people's legitimate rights, is the people have the right to disobey and resist the 'unjust' laws? I do not agree with it. In a democratic nation or society, people should use formal means to protest the maybe unjust law. Take Martin Luther King as example. Facing the unjust law towards the African people in USA, he did not claim to disobey and resist the 'unjust' laws, but choose peace methods to reveal the discontent. To manifest the discontent against the rule that the African only allowed to sit on the back of bus, King claim people do not use bus as traffic tool, and finally the government yielded. That means, in a democratic society or nation, there is no need to disobey and resist unjust laws, and other peaceful methods could be utilized to adjust the unjust ones. 不能说是no need的，我觉得是应该使用比别的方法会更有效。强调理性的对抗不公平的法律。

On the other hand, in some country or society, like autocratic ones, the peace methods could work weakly, or even invalidly, maybe the actions, like disobey and resist, work well. In the Second World War, the Nazi Germany manifested a lot of laws to control the action of Jews, harm their profit, and even kill them. Of course, these laws are all unjust, and a lot of kind-hearted Germen lend their hands to help the people in danger. Obviously, their movements disobey the laws and even resist them, but nowadays, nearly nobody complain they illegal actions, and in Israel, their names are caved in the monument and remembered generation by generation. Therefore, in an autocratic nation, or such societies like this, to some extent the actions to disobey and resist the unjust laws are correct. 也不能说正确，只能说是效果更好。我觉得写issue是要想着arg中的一些问题，不要用太过绝对的词。

To conclude, the one should not determine whether a law just or unjust only by his own profit; then in a democratic society and nation the laws should be obeyed, the unjust laws should be adjusted through no violent methods; yet, in some kind countries or society, like autocratic ones, facing unjust laws disobey and resist may be a better choice because of no way to adjust them.

个人觉得这道题相当有说头，可以从很多方面写。比如法律是没有办法简单的分成公正与不公正，再说说违抗和抵制国家法律会带来的作用之类的。于是乎我就思维混乱，昨天想了半天还是没有得出最后的提纲。
总体来说，语言很棒！！！羡慕ing
每个问题也说得很清楚，但需要在深入一些。
不错不错哈~~~~

huangdaoUID：190018

Therefore, in an autocratic nation, or such societies like this, to some extent the actions to disobey and resist the unjust laws are correct. 也不能说正确，只能说是效果更好。我觉得写issue是要想着arg中的一些问题，不要用太过绝对的词。

因为考虑到绝对性的问题 我用了to some extent 可能语气没那么强了吧？

That means, in a democratic society or nation, there is no need to disobey and resist unjust laws, and other peaceful methods could be utilized to adjust the unjust ones. 不能说是no need的，我觉得是应该使用比别的方法会更有效。强调理性的对抗不公平的法律。

改成这样是不是好些?
That means, in a democratic society or nation, people should carefully consider peaceful methods which could be well utilized to adjust the unjust ones.

[ Last edited by huangdao on 2005-8-17 at 13:35 ]

mvpzhuangUID：205051

en  好多了！！加油阿
写得很不错滴呢

huangdaoUID：190018

However,慎用此类强转折 if a law actually damages a group of people's legitimate rights, is the people have the right to disobey and resist the 'unjust' laws?

蓝字换成 On the one hand