1010G欢迎拍文作文修改小组----6月20日作业帖

sherryhuhuhuUID: 2834899

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two typesof laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility toobey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjustlaws."
WORDS: 520
TIME: 01:27:08 雪小糊
DATE: 2010/6/19

The speaker asserts that laws can be categorizedinto two types: just ones that everyone should obey and unjust ones every individualshould disobey and resist. This claim seems appealing at the first glance. However,with further consideration, especially into the part of disobeying andresisting unjust laws, I think it is inappropriate and too extreme.

The first argument to uphold my opinion isthat how to define a piece of law is just or unjust is not easy. Different regionsor even different people in the same place may have different criterion whichis influenced by many factors such as the history and religion. So it can beeasily understood that something considered just in one place may be regardedtotally unjust in another place. We can take the marriage law for example. Inmany countries all around the world, including China, polygamy is illegal. Ifone has more than one spouse, he or she will be punished and attached withlabels of disobeying moral. However in several other countries, polygamy, whichoften refers to cases that one man has two or more wives, is allowed by law andmaybe a man with more wives is considered stronger or richer. Assuming that thespeaker's assertion is absolutely right, then if I come to a country allowingpolygamy what is the correct behavior for me, a person from a country totallyagainst polygamy. Should I accept it because I am in the country where the lawallows it and no one around me regards it as incorrect? No, because that willmake me uncomfortable. Then should I resist it on ground that it is wrong in mymind? The same answer as above because resisting it in the country allowing itis useless and just waste of time. Furthermore, even though in the samecountry, people can have different views because of their differentperspectives. For example, the law-makers often consider from a higher leveland for a more provident aim, and we populace often consider more aboutourselves. Hence, sometimes, laws we think as unjust to us may be isestablished for the good of all the people or our country. So we can see thatthe claim that there only two types of laws is unreliable.

Since the premise of the assertion isunreliable, resisting the so-called unjust laws can undoubtedly bring about counterproductiveaftermath. Take the abortion issue for example. If a person, from the religionagainst abortion because they think that is inhumanity, resist abortion in acountry that allows abortion through dissuading pregnant who wants to haveabortion surgery because they can afford to raise the baby or some otherreasons in the hospital, that person's word may make the patients more sad andthat is harmful to their health. And resisting laws that are really unjust canalso have bad results. As far as I am concerned, people often take extreme actionsto presenting their dissatisfaction, such as demonstration which may disturbsociety's harmony. In fact, at this time, we can think some better ways to helpcorrecting unjust laws, for example, writing to the officers of legislatingdepartment.

In conclusion, the speaker's opinion isinappropriate. The part of law that we should obey may be not thatcontroversial. But when it comes to the part we should resist, I think, accordingto different situations, sometimes to let it be may be a good choice.

yogurt4UID: 198389

The speaker asserts that laws can be categorizedinto two types: just ones that everyone should obey and unjust ones every individualshould disobey and resist. This claim seems appealing at the first glance. However,with further consideration, especially into the part of disobeying andresisting unjust laws, I think it is inappropriate and too extreme.


开头写了这么多，说law分两种，然后说自己不同意。大部分都是假大空形式语句，完全没必要。要么说出自己不同意的理由，要么就省点墨水直接说不同意。时间都给浪费掉了。

同样的道理放在你正文第一论点就是：How to define a piece of law is just or not just in not easy. 可以了。

yogurt4UID: 198389

我又看了后面的一点点。。。我个人觉得重婚的例子不太好用。法律本身也有它的地域局限性，你最后设想一个地区的人去服从另外一个地区的法律，不太合理。光看你的hard to define的论点我会先到反对堕胎，gay marriage诸如此类的。

sherryhuhuhuUID: 2834899

2# yogurt4


这篇 issue 从另一面写会不会更好呢。。。我只是 因为看了 范文 才从这个角度破题的。。。
另一个角度。。。历史上好多 反抗不合理 公正的法律的革命 促进了人类社会的进步。。。

yogurt4UID: 198389

2# yogurt4


这篇 issue 从另一面写会不会更好呢。。。我只是 因为看了 范文 才从这个角度破题的。。。
另一个角度。。。历史上好多 反抗不合理 公正的法律的革命 促进了人类社会的进步。。。
sherryhuhuhu 发表于 2010-6-20 22:55

我就看了你的开头跟正文第一段。第一个论点写的不错，就是例子的选择有点问题。我一开始觉得重婚放在这里写没有问题，你的问题是出在 Assuming that thespeaker's assertion is absolutely right, then if I come to a country allowingpolygamy what is the correct behavior for me, a person from a country totallyagainst polygamy. 你把一个地区的人放到另外一个地区去，要他对另外一个地区的法律做出反映，这里才是不合理的地方。不过我后来又看了下题目，题目点到了Every individual in a society ，实际上就暗含一个社会群体内部的人，对本群体的法律所做出的反映。回头看你的例子，在中国，一夫一妻合法，在某些国家，一夫多妻也合法。那重婚根本就不存在unjust的问题了。所以你的列子选取不合适。

你说的从另一方面写，是从哪一方面写呢？我没明白你的意思。
至于你说反抗不合理法律的革命促进了人类的进步，我第一下想起来的是美国废除奴隶制之类的例子。可以写，不过还是那句话，想好再下手，不然这种促进人类社会的立意，落实到文字上很容易写的很“虚”。

yogurt4UID: 198389

另外 我今天刚看了一篇不错的习作，写的也是这个题目，你要不要跟我一起去观摩观摩
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1112865-1-1.html

这个人思路很清晰。我从头读到尾，觉得很流畅。

raysun77UID: 2688235

1.你所说的重婚的问题在一个地方是可以的但是另一个地方就不行了，这只能说明同一个法律受不同地域的人的不同的观念限制，这个问题酸奶已经解释的很好了，我就不罗嗦了哈
2.
我觉得你得文章通篇都在说disobey andresisting unjust laws的问题，在第二段中已经提出define just or unjust 很难，这涉及到不同的信仰，不同的国家等等问题，而后又说了一下堕胎的事情，但是你的观点是什么我没看明白，是说我们不应该遵守unjust的法律吗？但是如果每个人都不遵守自己认为不正确的法律，这个世界不就乱了吗？所以我认为你可以说一下在改进法律条文之前人们应该怎么做
PS 我最不擅长法律的文章了，写的我很纠结啊啊啊啊啊啊:mad: