又一篇

无敌小番茄UID: 2684290

TOPIC: 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."

无敌小番茄UID: 2684290

Laws play an important role in maintaining good public order and protecting the lawful rights and interests of people. Some people believe that people should obey all the laws, while others figure that there are unjust laws beside just laws, and people should not obey the unjust laws. In my opinion, whatever just or unjust laws we should comply with them.

To begin with, it is hard to say a law is just or unjust, since different people may hold totally different standpoint toward to the same law when consider their own interests or stake. For example, consider a law that forbid laying off the pregnant women. The law is to safeguard the rights and interests of women. By obeying the law, companies have to pay them salary even they stay at home when having a baby. For company, it will loss money and staff. Then owners of these companies and other employees will think it is unfair. But it is the law that guarantee the interests of the pregnant women. In short, whether a law is just or not depend on personal interests not the law itself in some certain circumstance.


Next, we should obey the laws, neither just nor unjust according personal attitude. If someone breaks the law of country or local, our society will be in a dangerous edge. We should obey the just laws, since they define right regulations and standard to regulate behaviors of people and group. As well, we should follow the law even we think it is unjust. There is a law that the suspect should acquit if there was not enough evidence. In daily life, consider a really murder was be set free because of insufficient evidence; the brother of the victim will think the law is unjust. Is it real unjust? I do not think so. But the brother will not. He should plan to avenge for his dead sister. If all victims’ relatives were to decided to revenge for them, instead of according laws, the world will be fulfilled violence and terrible things.

However, that is not mean we can not do anything toward to unjust law. If we face an unjust law, we should to protect ourselves or our interests though legal ways. There are some succeeded cases show that we can “disobey unjust laws”. For instance, members in Animal Protecting Conservation maintain that Koran eat dog meat is violence and should prohibit them doing that. They use reasonable way to call for civilians and government to ban it. Then the new and just law has be passed. That inllustates that if we use right way we can gain our wants instead of disobeying them.

From what has discussed above, we can make a conclusion that we should obey all laws. If we think it is unjust, we can adapt it or made them legal.

windLeeUID: 2691719

2# 无敌小番茄

"Next, we should obey the laws, neither just nor unjust according(to?) personal attitude. If someone breaks the law of country or local, our society will be in(at?) a dangerous edge. We should obey the just laws, since they define right regulations and standard(s) to regulate behaviors of people and group. As well, we should follow the law even we think it is unjust. There is a law that the suspect should acquit(be acuitted?) if there was not enough evidence. In daily life, consider a really murder was (to) be set free because of insufficient evidence; the brother of the victim will think the law is unjust. Is it real unjust? I do not think so. But the brother will(may?) not. He should(should就是你教唆他去plan了, may be he will) plan to avenge for(刚才看掉了，avenge不要for.  avenge sb. 为某人复仇. avenge myself upon sb. 为我自己，向某人复仇) his dead sister. If all victims’ relatives were to decided(decide) to revenge for(revenge sb. for sth. 因某事为某人复仇 ) them, instead of according(being bound to? abiding by?) laws, the world will be fulfilled violence and terrible things."
恩... 因为抱怨不公正所以就会去复仇, 似乎有一点点自我臆断的样子, 而且, 被害人的家属尝试去违反的似乎不是那条导致凶手被释放的"不公正"的法律?  
所以我认为逻辑应该是, 如果因为被害者家属抱怨acquittal的法律太不公平了, 而导致法庭违背证相关法令宣判嫌疑犯的罪行成立, 即使指控嫌犯的证据是不足的, 那么这样的话,社会的根基就被质疑了, 法律也不再具备绝对约束力   如此如此....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
自己手痒写了下这段

Furthermore, once a law is legislated there leaves no room for any bound(似乎affected不太好,后面又有bound,开初就不想用它..) individual to disobey, no matter its equality is engaged in dispute or not. The purpose and function of laws are, by any means necessary, to guarantee a sustaining development of any society as a whole through its superior sanction to any bound person, briefly, disobey may cause serious consequences like the social collapse. Besides, unlike the ancient middle ages in which most laws are enacted by the emperor according to his own favor(presumable reason for an empire to vanish), nowadays, the validity of every law is confirmed through legal and sufficient procedures by publicly selected governmental organizations before its draft being legislated, especially in most democracies where a congress representing the public holds vote for the establishment of laws, leaving little room, if any space, for an individual to rebel or even doubt(开初写的doubt or even rebel, 不太好.反过来). In the well known murder case of O.J.Simpson, the court acquitted the suspect of his charge because the evidence presented by the prosecution turned out to be illegally obtained, while most people believed that he was guilty. Admittedly, there are always controversies in these evidence laws, sometimes, it is extremely hard for the justice to befall the criminal as the bottom line for their sentence may shift in different situations while the law seems relatively inflexible.  However, if the court gave Mr. O.J.Simpson a verdict of guilty for those illegal evidence, a sinking hole would have been opened in the airtight law system, which means, every law could be doubted and disobeyed, as a result, the root of the society would be damaged, causing the entire nation to fall apart.

windLeeUID: 2691719

273词, 不算太多.
100,
200,
273,
50
------
623. 合理

我也不留回改地址了. 我本来也没帮上你多少.  那就帮我看看我写的那段好了?

无敌小番茄UID: 2684290

很感谢
我觉得你写的太深了，我云里雾里的。
如果你在考场能写出这样的句子，我觉得都木有问题了

In the well known murder case of O.J.Simpson, the court acquitted the suspect of his charge because the evidence presented by the prosecution turned out to be illegally obtained, while most people believed that he was guilty. Admittedly, there are always controversies in these evidence laws, sometimes, it is extremely hard for the justice to befall the criminal as the bottom line for their sentence may shift in different situations while the law seems relatively inflexible.  However, if the court gave Mr. O.J.Simpson a verdict of guilty for those illegal evidence, a sinking hole would have been opened in the airtight law system, which means, every law could be doubted and disobeyed, as a result, the root of the society would be damaged, causing the entire nation to fall apart.

像是这段 太多了 我恐怕考场是写不出来
貌似是把我的例子具体化了

另外我觉得你写的很好，我改不出来，T T 似乎是我们的水平差距太大了

gottliebUID: 2459111

Laws play an important role in maintaining good public order and protecting the lawful rights and interests of people. Some people believe that people should obey all the laws, while others figure that there are unjust laws beside（aside from？） just laws, and people should not obey the unjust laws. In my opinion, whatever（这个词我一直想用就是用不好，学习了） just or unjust laws we should comply with them. （写的可以，和平常的不一样 我也写过这篇文章）

To begin with, （我也这么写，我怕到时候会不会判成issue和argument混淆呀？？？）it is hard to say a law is just or unjust, since different people may hold totally different standpoint toward （这里的to我给去掉了） the same law when consider their own interests or stake（好词收下了）. For example, consider laws that forbid lying off the pregnant women. The law is to safeguard the rights and interests of women. By obeying the law, companies have to pay them salary even they stay at home when having a baby. For company（如果我写我会写成From the perspective of company）, it will loss money and staff(labor). Then owners of these companies and other employees will think it is unfair. But it is the law that guarantee the interests of the pregnant women. In short, whether a law is just or not depend on personal interests not the law itself in some certain circumstance.(和例文的差不多，里面是legal abortion)


Next, we should obey the laws, neither just nor unjust according personal attitude. If someone breaks the law of country or local, our society will be in a dangerous edge. We should obey the just laws, since they define right regulations and standard to regulate behaviors of people and group. As well, we should follow the law even we think it is unjust. There is a law that the suspect should acquit if there was not enough evidence. In daily life, consider a really murder was be set free because of insufficient evidence; the brother of the victim will think the law is unjust. Is it real unjust? I do not think so. But the brother will not. He should plan to avenge for his dead sister. If all victims’ relatives were to decide to revenge for them, instead of according laws, the world will be fulfilled violence and terrible things.（个人感觉若果说是说明不服从感觉unjust law从法律的强制性等方面说更好些）

However, that is not mean we cannot do anything toward unjust law. If we face an unjust law, we should to protect ourselves or our interests though legal ways. There are some succeeded cases shows that we can “disobey unjust laws”. For instance, members in Animal Protecting Conservation maintain that Koran eat dog meat is violence and should prohibit them doing that. They use reasonable way to call for civilians and government to ban it. （这个例子柑橘比较跑题，高丽棒子吃狗没有犯法，而是不符合西方人的moral，估计德国人想都不敢想，与法律无关，没有unjust的成分）Then the new and just law has been passed. That illustrates that if we use right way we can gain our wants instead of disobeying them.

From what has discussed above, we can make a conclusion that we should obey all laws. If we think it is unjust, we can adapt it or made them legal.（有点短，我也不会写结尾）

gottliebUID: 2459111

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1003144-1-1.html这是我的，希望回板砖

windLeeUID: 2691719

恩..  个人意见下，standard可数，而且美国传统字典的说明是：常作 standards 道德标准：道德行为的要求

to begin with 很好. 和firstly没什么区别

windLeeUID: 2691719

－＝＝＝＝＝＝＝－－－－－－－－＝－

补充一下我写那一段时候的想法．

其实我认为，不公的法律是存在的，而且是需要抵制的－－－这与时代有关．　比如，黑奴法．
还有，过去的时代中许多歧视性的法律，　从来都被很多人一直努力地抵抗甚至政变．　这是不变的历史．

但是！．这样写的话就辛苦了．　因为现今社会也不是什么完美的社会，如果说今天的民主主义和文明化程度就达到了法律真是为了人人为了公正而制定的，那么就得提出证据．　这无疑很辛苦． 况且，法律从来都无法确保所有人，所有利益集团的利益．　中国甚至出现了保护弱势群体法．

所以，想想归想想．　不知道有谁有这样的例文？