issue17~~沉积了一段时间，有拍必回~~

ella_dylUID: 2595060

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."


Laws are used to govern a society and control the behavior of its members. Concerning laws, the author asserts that since laws are categorized as just ones and unjust ones, every individual in a society is incumbent to obey just laws and to disobey unjust laws.
However, as far as I am concerned, such responsibility is neither jurally valid nor practically feasible and thus does not exist.

The threshold point is that the line between just and unjust is difficult to draw, according to discrepant people's beliefs, interests, experiences. In general, Asian people consider it natural to use a little violence when educating children. When they move to America, citizens around them insist such behavior is the violation of human rights. This "just or unjust" controversy is actually due to different culture background. Besides, personal factors may also result in divarication. For instance, certain laws may request residents in some historic buildings to move out for the protection of local culture. In the eye of common populace, doubtlessly, this law is just and considerate to ensure social interests. However, as for the residents, especially the elderly who have a complex sense of nostalgia, this law, which forces them to leave their homes, may be regarded as unjust. Consequently, it is inappropriate to lineate an explicit line between these two kinds of laws due to subjective judgment. Which types a law belongs to should be determined on a case-by-case analysis based on overall social conditions.

Furthermore, I have to make it clear is that it is our obligation to obey all of the laws, no matter it is just or unjust. Laws lie in the core values on which a society depends to thrive. They serve to regulate people's behaviors and action, enforced by corresponding penalties, punishment and remedies, absent of which any laws would be empty and ramshackle. Even those so-called unjust laws, we are not given the freedom to violate them. Just like the speed limit of highways: granted that it is improper, imagine what will happen if everyone drives at their ideal speed. The consequences can be extremely serious which may even threaten human lives. When we are allowed to disobey the unjust laws in our mind, we provide ourselves a reasonable assumption that we could violate any laws, which could demolish the stabilization of the society.


Admittedly, unjust laws do exist for ill-awareness of legislators or changing social conditions. When certain laws are widely acknowledged as unjust and harm the interests of most of the citizens in the society, people should attempt to modify these laws through legal access. With ever-changing situation, Constitution has been amended for many times and a host of regulation or laws do not adapt to modern society have been bowdlerized. Such effect is easy to reach in democratic society. Since 1954--- the first Constitution of PRC was enacted---the fundamental law has been amended 7 times. If the governors fail to perceive their people's wills, a revolution may break out to overturn autocracy 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.

In sum, obeying laws is every citizen’s responsibility. Once people are accustomed to disobey whatever laws they consider unjust, laws will lose its authority and power of sanction. Afterwards, social stabilization will be threatened. When confronting with unjust laws, as a educated citizen, it is encouraged to defend ourselves through legal approaches.

plukaUID: 2721764

Laws are used to govern a society and control the behavior of its members. Concerning laws, the author asserts that since laws are categorized as just ones and unjust ones, every individual in a society is incumbent to obey just laws and to disobey unjust laws. However, as far as I am concerned, such responsibility is neither jurally valid nor practically feasible and thus does not exist.（稍微吐槽下，这个thus其实不算正宗的因果吧= =不合理不切实际，”所以“就不存在？后面这个所以让俺思索数秒，仍有些纠结）（不过开头很清晰嗯~）

The threshold point is that the line between just and unjust is difficult to draw, according to discrepant people's beliefs, interests, experiences. In general, Asian people consider it natural to use a little violence when educating children. When they move to America, citizens around them insist such behavior is the violation of human rights. This "just or unjust" controversy is actually due to different culture background. Besides, personal factors may also result in divarication. For instance, certain laws may request residents in some historic buildings to move out for the protection of local culture. In the eye of common populace, doubtlessly, this law is just and considerate to ensure social interests. However, as for the residents, especially the elderly who have a complex sense of nostalgia, this law, which forces them to leave their homes, may be regarded as unjust. Consequently, it is inappropriate to lineate an explicit line between these two kinds of laws due to subjective judgment. Which types a law belongs to should be determined on a case-by-case analysis based on overall social conditions. （观点和论述都OK，PASS）

Furthermore,（+what跟is that对应） I have to make it clear is that it is our obligation to obey all of the laws, no matter it is just or unjust.（出于个人理由看此句不爽= =不能接受“必须服从不公正的法律”这一说。私以为与其这么说，倒不如承上段，曰虽然公正性难以论证，但原则上人们应该服从现有的法律） Laws lie in the core values（啥是core value？另，个人以为道德更能反映core value。封建社会的暴政法典能反映core value？能让社会thrive？扯远一点，奥古斯都谁谁的当年就是以服从道德与否来看法律是否正义嘛） on which a society depends to thrive. They serve to regulate people's behaviors and action, enforced by corresponding penalties, punishment and remedies, absent of which any laws（没看懂这结构，是 without which any lawsXXX的意思？） would be empty and ramshackle. Even （+for）those so-called unjust laws, we are not given the freedom to violate them. Just like the speed limit of highways（啥……这个能算unjust law? 太下限了吧泪目！私以为，既然上段已经说了公正性不好区分，这段就不要再纠结什么公正不公正的问题了）: granted that it is improper（这个granted也很囧，为啥说限速“虽然”是“不合理”的？）, imagine what will happen if everyone drives at their ideal speed. The consequences can be extremely serious which may even threaten human lives. When we are allowed to disobey the unjust laws in our mind, we provide ourselves a reasonable assumption that we could violate any laws, which could demolish the stabilization of the society.（最后这句的想法很好！私以为很可以作为主观点来论证！这样看来，本段的TS就还可以加上点内容，指出服从法律是社会稳定和繁荣的先决条件云云，然后再展开。如段中所述，不要纠结啥公正不公正了，直接说守法的重要性云云。深入部分可以阐述一下有些法律虽然受到争议，但是如果因此而不遵守会有何种危害云云，然后末句总结。个人感觉会很不错。嗯嗯都是这最后一句给的灵感啊~）

Admittedly, unjust laws do exist for ill-awareness of legislators or changing social conditions. When certain laws are widely acknowledged as unjust（所以说B2的TS不合理啊，这里都说了要反抗不公正，那里还说no matter it is just or unjust） and harm the interests of most of the citizens in the society, people should attempt to modify these laws through legal access. With ever-changing situation, Constitution has been amended for many times and a host of regulation or laws do not adapt to modern society have been bowdlerized. Such effect（啥effect?求清晰指代） is easy to reach in democratic society. Since 1954--- the first Constitution of PRC was enacted---the fundamental law has been amended 7 times（一点小建议，与其讲PRC的，不如讲USA的吧，资料搜搜就有了）. If the governors fail to perceive their people's wills, a revolution may break out to overturn autocracy and abolish the unjust laws. （本段主体应该是群众，不是政府吧）（所以论证people should attempt toxxx的时候个人以为可以从“为啥要用合法手段”“不用会如何”“用了会如何”“会有问题么该怎么办”云云入手。说政府会被推翻，这个给俺的感觉是在论证“the goverment shouldXXX"）In a sense, instead of mere obedience and resistance（用breach可能更好。私以为resistance比较泛，要求修宪也算是对老规则的抵制吧） to the unjust laws, people have more initiative and effective approaches to deal with them.（观点OK。个人以为主要是论证重点不够突出。私以为重点应该是through legal access口牙！试着围绕这个点来论述一下吧？）

In sum, obeying laws is every citizen’s responsibility. Once people are accustomed to disobey whatever laws they consider unjust, laws will lose its authority and power of sanction. Afterwards, social stabilization will be threatened. When confronting with unjust laws, as a educated citizen, it is encouraged to defend ourselves through legal approaches.
（对照全文T看，突然觉得还有点不妥。T是such responsibility is neither jurally valid nor practically feasible and thus does not exist，这里的responsibility指服从公正反对不公正，于是此T的意思变成我们不需要也不大可能服从公正反对不公正。然而后文其实论述了“应该反对不公正，只不过要用合法手段”……分裂了。）


以上，加油！