@@茶叶蛋炒饭@@ 第四次作业 issue17 请组员跟帖

BryanpengUID: 2705644

Snow 修改extol




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.”
作者的观点有偏差，凡是称之为法的，无论怎样，都应该去遵守
1.法律的意义，法律总体上是公平且必须去遵守的，因为：法律是一种国家强制力保实施的非常普遍的，严谨的社会规范。他有强有力的保证（司法），他是从大量生活中抽取出来的普遍行为（杀人犯法），他在管辖范围内是普遍适用的，他规定最为严谨。是行为规范的底线。
2.即使有些法律，
对某些人不公平，甚至于道德上不忍，
也要去遵守。
因为：这种规范的公正与否因人的自身价值观，所处的社会阶层与环境而异。（举例，同居现象，赌博等等。）不能应为某些时候，某些地方的不公，或者于道德上说不过去（安乐死，吗啡）。就去破坏法律的权威，法律是底线，规定了人类作为社会的一份子所要遵守的最低准则。法律永远没有客观公正这一说。
3.法律也可以在适当的时候更改。
结尾
求拍，别留情，管不了了，拍的最狠的奖一次有事暂缓一天交作业的机会！
（名字后面有￥符号意味着你第一次开会准时上线，奖励一次延缓一天交作业的机会，此机会每人拥有不超过2次，使用一次只能延缓一天，使用不叠加。每次截止交作业的时间为当天晚上10点）



ISSUE by EXTOL



According to the definition of law, what the author asserts is a one-sided view.(根据法律的定义,作者的论述是片面的?法律的定义跟作者的论述没什么联系吧.这么表述不好) The rules must be observed at any time when it is(they are) regarded as laws. In this case, I don’t agree that there are two types of laws and we must obey the just laws, disobey and resist the unjust laws.

Law is a set of extremely universal, strict social regulations whose implementation is ensured by country. First, law can be considered to be the collection of universal behaviors in our daily lives. And, these universal behaviors represented(一般现在时即可) the common morality which human beings had come to a mutual agreement. Robbery, stealing and murder are wrong, if so, one must pay for his action. The judgment of these actions is(去掉) obviously depends on the common morality of human beings. So, the people who did these go against law and should be punished by law(这句话这样写是不好写:So people who have done something which goes against the law should be punished.). Second, although common morality is the guidance of human behaviors, it contains widely. Law only rules actions which have straightforward definition boundary. Robbery, stealing are all(both) illegal, for the reason that they can be considered the action of infringement of title. While picking up is not defined right or wrong by law because of the attitude towards this action varies from person to person. Third, why these rules can be regarded as laws due(形式我不敢确定) to the reason that they can be widely used and ensured by country. Not only Public Security Bureau, Justice Bureau and court but also other national administrative organs are all executors of law. Their performance is under controlled by law and, according to law, they maintain the running of national machine(machine指什么?) in order. So to speak: law is the bottom line of human’s action, it depends on the definite common morality, it can be widely admitted and used, and, the most important is, law can be executed ensured by national force. If some of these bases still be treated “right or wrong” by individuals or small group of people and cannot be obey completely. Why law exists?

In addition, different value system, different social level and different circumstances can make people have different ideas in (the)same things(thing). So do laws. Gambling is definitely forbidden by law in China. But, in America, it sometimes (was) recognized as an industry. Huge gambling house can be seen everywhere. Chinese people consider gambling as bad habits, it erodes people’s spirit, it caving(caves) out emptiness in people’s heart. Yet, Americans only consider it as a game. When(用even if是不好点) few Chinese people also consider gambling as a game, could they change laws in China? Of course not. It certainly goes against most of people’s mind in China. Not to mention euthanasia, cohabitation and so on. What we must acknowledge is that we still can’t change laws for the injustice in someplace or sometime, and, no one can judge a law whether it is just or not. Otherwise, law will lose its purpose: the bottom line of human’s action.

Admittedly, law is still revised by group of people according to the common morality. If dated laws can’t keep pace with modern society, yet, we can change it through strict procedure, for the purpose of serving people better.

To sum up, we must obey the law in any circumstance and no one can judge a law whether it is right or wrong. Law only can be revised according to present basic common morality in present society.

此篇较上篇有了很大的提高,论述的比较精彩,但感觉调理,结构上可以再考究一下,争取做的更清晰明了一点

imlifewillingUID: 2706999

l懒蚂蚁修改

According to the speaker, the laws are divided into two types: just and unjust. We must obey the just laws and disobey the unjust ones. However, as far as I am concerned, it isn’t all-inclusive and proper to judge a law simply by just and unjust, and the attitude we take should be a wise assessment of the situation accordingly.
开头说明了这种公正与否的评价是不全面的，我们应该根据实际情况判断。但是题目中的遵守与否你不考虑了？而且我觉得重点应该是后者吧？
I concede that there are some special laws enacted and enforced in favor of particular groups of people, such as “Disabled People Protection Law”, “Child-rights Protection law”, and etc. They seem to be “unjust” to some degree, for under the articles stipulated, the whole society must show consideration to some special groups, and these people enjoys a lot of privileges in social activities（我感觉这句话的因果关系不对啊）. But is there anyone with social responsibilities would criticize these laws as unjust and improper? I don’t think so. In my opinion, the society is an indivisible integrity. It is necessary to ensure everyone’s happiness to make the society on the track of sound progress（感觉少东西，我查了下，是go on the track of sound progress）. When there are some people in lack of basic living skills to survive around us, and when they are also part and parcel of us, we must show our love and concerns to protect and support them. That’s the meaning of the existence of special laws. They are not only just, but humane.
说明有些法律看似不公平实际上是公平的，而且是人性化的。
In fact, justness is not an absolute concept. It is relevant, concerning with different people with different religions, knowledge background, and even moral level. The same law may be viewed polar different. For instance, in 1924, the United States Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act. It rules a quota system that the number of people allowed to emigrate from a given country each year was based on the number of people from that country already living in the US. It actually gives great preference to relatives of the existing inhabitants and people from the countries which have an immigration tradition, but imposes great restriction to others. As a result, it was warmly welcomed by the beneficial owners for it has guaranteed their job and housing opportunities from the flooding of foreign immigrants, but criticized severely by others who regarded it as unjust and declared it a kind of racial discrimination. How can we judge it now without personal prejudice? There will never be a simple answer if only linked with single individuals. To put it in another way, the meaning of an existing law should not be judged by one’s own experiences and values, but from a large picture. If it can serve a goal larger than one’s immediate needs, it is worth obedience, and this obedience, is a must.
这段开头就说法律的公正性是相对的，那么上一段举得例子不是也能说明相对性吗？这是不是让人感觉重复呢？？还有就是举的1924年的法律为什么有的动词还是现在时呢？（我语言不好，希望说明下，哈哈。）
Laws have taken into the majority into consideration when enacted, thus so they are in accordance with most people’s interest. When certain clauses become laws, they also own the connotation that every citizen must obey them unconditionally. That is to say, laws are compulsive; no matter it is just or not according to one’s personal value system.
这段感觉有点跳跃
If a law, however, becomes out of date and loses its capability to benefit the majority, we may think about abandoning it. India has abolished the Caste System, for it is a virtual racial discrimination system, which has limited the freedom to pursue equality and happiness and severely checked the development rate of India.（这个地方的上面和下面连接不好，前面说法律不适应环境怎么办，后面说没有十全十美的法律，是不是稍微过度下，或用个连词？） There is no perfect law in the world, and we have opportunities all the time to revise it. One way is to repeal it, for it has lost its function completely. The other can be melioration moderately. The US Constitution is the best example. Since its birth, it has served as the basic code of behavior in American society. It has never been changed, only added by several amendments according to the demand of the time.
这段的例子举得很好。
Therefore, back to our topic, it is an obligation to obey laws, or they exist in name only. If we think a law is not good enough, we can either abandon it or revise it, to promote the progress of legal system. Blind resistance will do no good, but bring chaos or an anarchic state. The correct attitude toward the flaws of established laws is to reflect them to the legislators through proper way.
结尾最后一句正文中并没有体现啊？
全文总体上不错，先说明法律公正性的评断，但是正文一二段的意思有点小重复，文中有点评
还有就是开头只说明了法律的公正性问题，并没有说明遵守的问题。你正文中有遵守的问题，这样对应不好。
还有其他地方在文中一指出。

yuxiang1900UID: 2558709

小翔飞飞改Sonia

What the speaker mainly recommends is that we should follow the just laws and disobey the laws that we consider as unjust. From my personal perspective, the speaker’s statement is unreasonable and illogical in some respects, even though I agree with speaker that laws can be divided into two types: just and unjust.
The chief reason for why I disagree with the speaker is that different people with different interests have different opinions about the justice of a law. For instance, manufacturers always have confliction with the environmentalists. From the perspective of the owners of manufacturing factories, it is unavoidable and undoubted to discharge air pollution and water pollution into the environment They think that it is the law’s obligation to protect their rights for normal operation and legal property. On the other hand, for environmentalists and most of residents who reside around the factories, air pollution and water pollution are intolerable and nauseous to their usual lives. Laws also should be responsible for their health and daily lives. However, it seems to be impossible and unpractical for laws to protect both interests at the antithetic circumstance. So does the international law, which is relevant to different nations and respects. Enforcement of international law is often difficult because nations are sovereign powers that put their own interests ahead of others. (这段要写各人对法律是否公正的看法不同，但内容写成了法律不能照顾所有人的利益)
The second reason why I disagree with the speaker is that
I believe laws are different with morality. Morality, principle or standards of human activities, is not as strict as laws since the punishment of laws is stricter. No matter whether one likes it or not, agrees with it or not, once he or she breaks a law, he or she must be punished. He or she has to pay the fine, pay damage, or take the term of (?) incarceration. （我按照你的意思重新组合了文章）
Whether one has to be subject to punishments of a law has no relevance to whether the law is fair or not in someone’s view. From my personal perspective about the issue, people need to obey the laws even though they have different and even contrary opinions with them. If we decide to use some extreme methods to resist
laws like strikes or riots, we would turn to be anarchists who ruin the peace of our society.(是无政府主义者不一定破坏社会安宁)（这段废了，逻辑不清，层次不明先不说，speaker并没有提到punishment，你却把punishment当成了论点）
The last reason I disagree with the speaker is that when we confront with unjust laws, ruthless violation toward existing laws is unjust
activities, to resort to rational and legislative behaviors is the most sensible choice. With the development of society, there is indeed a host of regulations or laws that do not adapt to modern society. Fortunately, we have legal remedies to such laws with much irrationality. Now all the democracy countries, say American, Canada etc, have complete constitutional system to amend those laws contained some unfairness. We can seek those legislatures to complain the laws seem not just.
To sum up, the author’ recommendation is not feasible in today’s world. Only obeying what one thinks is right while disobeying the rest will surely cause social chaos. Real just law in most people’s common sense is one that fit the society’s needs better. Only through people working out impartial legislations which are the fruits of their consensus would we accomplish the justice.(最后这句话废了，没人能看懂)