【Hawk组】活动7.8-7.10

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

8日完成前4个任务，全文练习可以明天交！
且要附上DOC文件，方便互批！
互批顺序：晓航-ROSE-谦行-AGNES-晓航（后改前）
9日写全文！
10日互改，并根据改的情况再加工一下！然后将法律类的题目看一遍。可以按修锐的，或者作文大讲堂上小宝的分类都可以！
从明天开始由小谦（第一周）来贴阅读贴！每天两篇！

大家加油啊！

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

outline:
开头
1、定义：法律体现统治阶级的意志，由国家制定和颁布。法律以权力和义务为内容，以确认、保护和发展统治阶级所期望的社会关系和社会秩序为目的的行为规范体系。
2、①：既然是统治阶级所期望的社会关系和社会秩序为目的，可能由于社会发展不够先进，时代变迁，一旦统治阶级所期望的社会关系和社会目的并没有对该国公民一视同仁，那么不公正的法律将会出现。如：奴隶法
②：有时候，即使统治阶级尽力做到公正，但是有时候却不得不使一部分人的利益受损。例如：安乐死，同性恋，堕胎等。
3、是否要遵守不公正的法律视情况而定。在①的情况下，只有通过起义造反，推翻暴政，才能推动社会发展，人们争取自身的利益。在②的情况下，受益者和受害者都很难通过不遵守该法律使社会更安定，因为这必将使另一方受损，因而，只有更好的敦促统治者讲法律不断不断的完善，最终达到一个平衡。
4、现在发达国家的多数法律都能做到公平公正，社会发展到一定水平时，统治阶级通过历史经验教训得知，法律只有公正才能起作用。因为，统治者要不断倾听那些不情愿、不愿意，甚至是现代社会中不遵守法律的人，使法律更完善。
结尾。。。

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

提纲：
虽然法律可以分为正义和非正义两类，但对其的分界是很困难的，对于不同人来说是不同的。而且随着时间在变。实行全民抵制非正义法律这个建议的目的是好的，但是实行起来可能引起一些很不好的结果。
1.


首先，再这之前我们要确定什么是正义和非正义的法律，怎么界定。对于不同时间，不同地点，不同种族，宗教信仰，不同阶级的人来说是不同的。  而且公正和不公正正是由于这些不同产生的！
Example:摩洛哥的<个人身份法>30条1款：信封伊斯兰教的男人，可以娶4个妻子。
而摩洛哥的犹太人则收犹太法管制。还有中国某少数民族走婚。
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution..在期建立时被看做是公正的，但随着时间的变化企业不公正了。
Reason:
2.


（正）这么做是合理的。可取的。
Example: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Nuremberg Laws
Reason：第一个案是时间变化，第二个案是种族歧视。需要人们的抵制
3


（反）如果所有人都来抵制！那么不同人对公正不公正的法律的判断是不同的。这样不同人抵制不同的法律。这样就会出现比较多的法律背抵制，会削弱法律的权威性！甚至导致社会的动荡不安，大混乱pandemonium
4
暴力反抗是不应该的！应该尽量用非暴力。
"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so." — Mahatma Gandhi


暴力的血腥是大家都不愿意看到的，但有时非暴力是解决不了问题的，所以我们应在尽量使用非暴力手段基础上来解决问题。


一般是受侵犯的弱小的一方才会反抗。强大的一方一般都会被法律的天平略倾斜一些。所以为了保持法律的公平公正性，强大的一方应多考虑弱小的一方的建议！

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

改晓航！
提纲：
虽然法律可以分为正义和非正义两类，但对其的分界是很困难的，对于不同人来说是不同的。而且随着时间在变。实行全民抵制非正义法律这个建议的目的是好的，但是实行起来可能引起一些很不好的结果。
1. 首先，再这之前我们要确定什么是正义和非正义的法律，怎么界定。对于不同时间，不同地点，不同种族，宗教信仰，不同阶级的人来说是不同的。  而且公正和不公正正是由于这些不同产生的！
Example:摩洛哥的<个人身份法>30条1款：信封伊斯兰教的男人，可以娶4个妻子。
而摩洛哥的犹太人则收犹太法管制。还有中国某少数民族走婚。个人观点：这个例子里面不公正吗？？都是从每个人利益的角度出发去制定的，这个算不公正吗？？走婚的例子中，有其他民族的男人或者女人觉得不公正吗？
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution..在期建立时被看做是公正的，但随着时间的变化企业不公正了。

Reason:
2. （正）这么做是合理的。可取的。
Example: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Nuremberg Laws
Reason：第一个案是时间变化，第二个案是种族歧视。需要人们的抵制。为什么是合理的，可取的？稍微写点吧

3 （负）如果所有人都来抵制！那么不同人对公正不公正的法律的判断是不同的。这样不同人抵制不同的法律。这样就会出现比较多的法律背抵制，会削弱法律的权威性！好！！甚至导致社会的动荡不安，大混乱pandemonium

4 暴力反抗是不应该的！应该尽量用非暴力。
"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so." — Mahatma Gandhi
暴力的血腥是大家都不愿意看到的，但有时非暴力是解决不了问题的，所以我们应在尽量使用非暴力手段基础上来解决问题。
一般是受侵犯的弱小的一方才会反抗。强大的一方一般都会被法律的天平略倾斜一些。所以为了保持法律的公平公正性，强大的一方应多考虑弱小的一方的建议！

agnes2010UID: 2794922

反对speaker所说法律有公正与不公正的说法，过于片面，没有给出公正与否的界定，遵守或抵抗更是无从说起。

首先，界定法律公正与否都取决于人为的主观因素，然而，根据地区差异、文化背景的不同所导致的价值观不同会影响不同人之间对法律的判断。所以难以简单的定夺法律公正与否。
（比如，爱尔兰是信奉天主教的国度，禁止离婚。别的国度的人会认为这样很不公平，但信奉天主教的教徒则认为这是对爱情的忠贞，离婚就是犯下大罪，不得再接受洗礼。）

其次，公平与否应是随着时间的推移得出的，法律在经受历史的考验后方能证明其有效性，公平性。

再次，大众有权表达对法律的意见，但不能不遵守法律，法律是底线，是准则，是社会权威。个人的行为不能抵制法律，造成社会的不和谐。改善法律应有相关定法部门监督。

对这篇文章很不感冒呢....



写好了....终于憋了出来....


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."
WORDS: 520
TIME: 01:30:26
DATE: 2010-7-9 23:22:04
Law is a system of rules, shaping politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a primary social mediator of relations between people. Just as Lady Justice represents, law is to give impartial trial and to be just. However, agreement can hardly be reached when people judging a law just or not. Therefore, to make the society live in harmony, it is crucial for citizens to follow the law and order no matter how they consider law.
Each person may hold an unique view on the fairness of a law. Their criteria in the judgment differ from each others since people from different countries share different social and cultural background or view on value. For instance, If you are a devout Catholic, you should not get divorced. Since Ireland is a country full of Catholics, people there may understand the rule as a way to show respect to love. Yet, people in Thailand can hardly agree with the law as plural marriage is very common in their traditional life. Due to the disparate cultural background, people from both country share extremely different view on marriage and both will judge the law in the other country as unfair.As a result, when people are judging laws impartial or not, they can not avoid being prejudiced, which means it is hard to judge laws by human strength.
Although human factors alone can not be the criteria judging the fairness of laws, whether the laws are unbiased or not can be found after the test of time. In ancient China, females, labeled as labor in a family, were not allowed to go to study or take part in imperial examinations. Only males have the opportunities to get successful status in the society. However, no females considered it to be unjust at that time, and they got accustomed to their lives. It had been a long time until the law was abolished. Nowadays, both females and males can have the equal opportunities to get educated or trained. After enduring the test of time, such a law turned out to be unjust in new period. So it would be better to let the time test the fairness of a law.
Since every law is the collection of rules imposed by authority, people who disobey it will be punished by force of law. Therefore, it is advisable for everyone to obey all the laws and offer a proposal to promote the seemingly biased laws instead of resist them. If every citizen turns an blind eye to laws, the public security order will be poor and an overall smooth development of a society can never been achieved. Nevertheless, the concerning legislative branch should not overlook what citizens suggests. They must take everything useful into consideration and make an impartial conclusion in order to prove current laws.
To sum up, whether a law is biased or not can no easily be determined by people themselves, so it will be unreasoning to take resistance movements against current laws. Obeying law and order should be high on the list to ensure the public security order in a society.

=========================================
自改一
=========================================

Law is a system of rules, shaping politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a primary social mediator of relations between people. Just as Lady Justice represents, law is to give impartial trial and to be just. However, agreement can hardly be reached when people judge a law just or not. Therefore, to make the society live in harmonious, it is crucial for citizens to follow the law and order no matter how they consider law.
Each person may hold his or her own view on the fairness of a law. Their criteria in the judgment differ from each others since people from different countries share different social and cultural background or view on value. For instance, if you are a devout Catholic, you should not get divorced. Since Ireland is a country with lots of Catholics, people there may consider the rule as a way to show respect to love. Yet, people in Thailand can hardly agree
with the law as plural marriage is very common in their traditional life. Due to the disparate cultural background, people from both country share extremely different view on marriage and both of them will judge the law in the other country as unfair.
As a result, when people are judging whether the laws are impartial or not, they can not avoid being prejudiced and preferring what benefits them. That is to say, it is hard to judge laws by human strength.
Although human factors alone can not be the criteria judging the fairness of laws, whether the laws are unbiased or not can be proved
by the test of time. In the ancient China, females, labeled as labor in a family, were not allowed to go to study or take part in imperial examinations. Only males have the opportunities to enjoy successful status in the society. However, no females considered it as unjust at that time, and they got accustomed to their lives. It had been a long time until the law was abolished. Nowadays, both females and males can have the equal opportunities to get educated or trained. After enduring the test of time, such a law turned out to be unjust in new period. So the passing time and history can be the best tester.
However, some people will disobey or restrict the current law as they think the law is biased, which may break the present law system. Since every law is the collection of rules imposed by authority, people who disobey it will be punished by force of law. It is advisable for everyone to follow all the laws and offer a proposal to the legislative branch if there seems to be some biased laws. When every citizen turns a blind eye to laws, the public security order will be poor and the overall smooth development of a society can never been achieved. What’s more, the concerning legislative branch should not overlook what citizens suggests. They must take everything useful into consideration and make an impartial conclusion in order to prove current laws.
To sum up, the standard of biased and unbiased laws is not a straightforward issue. No matter how people consider laws, obeying it should be high on the list to ensure the public security order in a society. On the premise of that, both citizens and the legislative branch should work together to set more effective laws.

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

反对speaker所说法律有公正与不公正的说法，过于片面，没有给出公正与否的界定，遵守或抵抗更是无从说起。

首先，界定法律公正与否都取决于人为的主观因素，然而，根据地区差异、文化背景的不同所导致的价值观不同会影响不同人之间对法律的判断。所以难以简单的定夺法律公正与否。
（比如，爱尔兰是信奉天主教的国度，禁止离婚。别的国度的人会认为这样很不公平，但信奉天主教的教徒则认为这是对爱情的忠贞，离婚就是犯下大罪，不得再接受洗礼。）

其次，公平与否应是随着时间的推移得出的，法律在经受历史的考验后方能证明其有效性，公平性。

再次，大众有权表达对法律的意见，但不能不遵守法律，法律是底线，是准则，是社会权威。个人的行为不能抵制法律，造成社会的不和谐。改善法律应有相关定法部门监督。

对这篇文章很不感冒呢....
agnes2010 发表于 2010-7-9 21:24

我觉得可以加点正反面的，比如在社会很不公正以至于立法又不公正的时间段进行反抗！我觉得这是必要的。最好还是不要完全反对吧？呃。。。拙见啊。。。

谦行天下UID: 2797557

Position: I agree with the issue
A.
The standard of just and unjust laws is not a straightforward issue. we cannot judge laws by personal interests or ethnic bias.
e.g evade tax 受处罚的人不能认为法律不公正
abortion在种族里不认可，未必就能认为 允许 abortion的法律不公正。

B.
Every individual has responsibility to obey just laws, even when the law is opposite to personal interests. Obligation and right

C. However, to change the unjust law also is the responsibility of citizens, for doing so will help improve the legal system of a nation.
e.g The Shawshank Redemption 告示了法律的不公正性的存在
马丁 解放黑奴运动


附件 里 是作文 [001]issue 17 谦行天下 final.doc (27 KB, 下载次数: 3)

2010-7-9 23:04:02 上传

下载次数: 3

===============第一次自改文==========================
Law, a system of rules, is the primary social mediator of relationships between people because it shapes the economics, politics and society in numerous ways. Laws can be divided into two categories—— just and unjust ones, but since law can only represent the interest or stake of a certain group of people, the just and unjust is relative. It is an undeniable truth that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws, and take serious action to unjust laws.
The standard of just and unjust laws is not a straightforward issue. We have no clear definition of just and unjust law. Different people hold different view. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King said that “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” From my point of view, laws always benefit a certain group, the majority or the minority, and harm the other group. The just law needs to be debated by people and finally people agree to a conclusion. Consider, for example, although tax could cut down the personal income of citizens, we could not catalog the tax law as unjust when someone evade the tax. Another example some laws allow the abortion of mothers. While some regions forbid abortion, it is ex parte to classify the law as unjust law. Thus, we cannot judge laws by personal interests or ethnic bias.
Legal systems elaborate right and responsibilities. Every individual has responsibility to obey just laws, even when the law is opposite to personal interests, and enjoy their right, which ensures a stable and orderly society. Nations always strictly enforce the law with the help of army. Nowadays, with the development of civilization, modern laws are meant to be fairness, equality and justice. Law makers study from history and try their best to make sure the law is justice. It is people’s right and responsibility to obey the just rules.
However, to change the unjust law is also the responsibility of citizens, for doing so will help improve the legal system of a nation. The reforming of unjust law always takes a long time. Laws could be unjust due to wrong conventions or misjudgment of justices. In the famous movie The Shawshank Redemption, the two heroes are victims of unjust laws which elude the existence of unjust law. In real world, reason people use non-violence movement to resist unjust law to avoid innocent death. For instance, in the civil war, Dr King emancipated the blacks without guns. Nowadays, it is common to see that officials collect the opinion from people, discuss in small scale conference and submit to the advanced parliaments to discuss. The reformation of unjust law passes when most people support.
In conclusion, just law ensures the stability of a society and every citizen needs to obey just laws. People also have responsibility to help reform unjust law by non-violent ways. The justice of law is relative to a certain group of people, and when people judge the law, numerous of debate need to be progressed to reach a reasonable conclusion of the law.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改rose
不好意思，第一次改提纲，来晚了

outline: 开头 1、定义：法律体现统治阶级的意志，由国家制定和颁布。法律以权力和义务为内容，以确认、保护和发展统治阶级所期望的社会关系和社会秩序为目的的行为规范体系。 2、①：既然是统治阶级所期望的社会关系和社会秩序为目的，可能由于社会发展不够先进，时代变迁，一旦统治阶级所期望的社会关系和社会目的并没有对该国公民一视同仁，那么不公正的法律将会出现。如：奴隶法 ②：有时候，即使统治阶级尽力做到公正，但是有时候却不得不使一部分人的利益受损。例如：安乐死，同性恋，堕胎等。 3、是否要遵守不公正的法律视情况而定。在①的情况下，只有通过起义造反，推翻暴政，才能推动社会发展，人们争取自身的利益。【举例的么？】在②的情况下，受益者和受害者都很难通过不遵守该法律使社会更安定，因为这必将使另一方受损，因而，只有更好的敦促统治者讲法律不断不断的完善，最终达到一个平衡。 4、现在发达国家的多数法律都能做到公平公正，社会发展到一定水平时，统治阶级通过历史经验教训得知，法律只有公正才能起作用。因为，统治者要不断倾听那些不情愿、不愿意，甚至是现代社会中不遵守法律的人，使法律更完善。 结尾。。。

我觉得提纲还可以呢。你从不公正的法律的来源，和是否该遵守不公正法律两个角度来讨论问题。
看你写出的文章如何。加油！

————————————————改rose作文—沿用了以前【fish】改作文的形式———————
ISSUE17
谦行天下 改 rose
Red-语法词法问题
Blue-好词好句
Pink-不理解的地方
Green-小结
Law is a system of rules always enforced through a set of institutions, but there is one kind of law which is against the initial purpose of the legal system and doesn't treat everyone fairly---the unjust law. Whether every person in a society is accountable to disobey and resist unjust law depends on the diverse situations in the course of history.
法律存在不公正性，
每个人是否该反抗不公正的法律该视情况而定。
The definition tells like this: laws are designed and enacted by the country, which embody the will of rulers. They have usually been a set of rules for society for the purpose of confirming, protecting and developing the social relationship and order which has been expected by the governor. Since the rulers of one country legislate according to their own will, the laws made by the controllers unnecessarily act like an accurate balance?[What the balance for?], which lead to the unjust laws.
法律的定义。不公正法律来源于法律仅代表统治阶级的利益。
The lagging economy, immature social production relationship probably affects the judgment in the course of legislation by the rulers. For instance, the slave laws in the ancient China and the United States during the period of civil war sanction the existence of slaves. The governors of these societies had no ideas about the consequences of such unjust laws. As a result of that, the rulers fail to enforce laws unbiasedly to every people.
不公正来源的主观原因
Sometimes even if the rulers had tried their best to be just to every individual, some part of the society always[可删除，冗余] still suffer. Laws about euthanasia and homosexuality are good examples. For these two issues, it has always been hard for the government to satisfy everyone. [Laws can not always satisfy everyone because it always benefit one interest and punish the other side][Probably if you change ‘satisfy everyone’ to ‘persuade everyone’] It seems that an elaborate balance among the beneficiary and the sufferers are waiting to be found through the amendment of the relevant acts again and again. [Good! Good!]
不公正来源的客观原因
Unjust laws are unavoidable. Opposition to unjust laws may cause many harmful consequences, such as violent insurrection, unstable domination etc.[you’d better not use abbreviation] Sometimes, especially in ancient times, a violent rebellion caused by some unfair clause actually pulled down the former ruler and make the society get into a new epoch with the development of politics and economy.[good example and good expression] However, more often, resistance to the unjust law in a proper way[What kind of proper way? Can you elaborate a little bit more? Or you give an example would be much more better] may be a better idea for the people. Citizens need law to ensure a safe and peaceful society in which individuals' rights are respected. Provided a set of rules, which are supposed to keep the society together, results to a blood bath in the whole country, this situation will be the last scene everyone wants to see, which is against the initial purpose of the law. Thus, every individual, including the governors, should communicate with other groups to listen the voice from their hearts and try to amend the acts, through which they can make the most effect of the laws.
对待不公平的法律，要用和平的方式
Nowadays, most laws in the developed countries can enforce justly to everyone. Time going on, the rulers learned huge amounts of experience from history and come to realize that only just laws can truly protect basic citizen's rights and freedoms. As a result of that, the governor ought to consider the benefit of both sides of the people, especially the reasons why sufferers are unwilling to obey the law, and make the laws more complete and perfect.
现如今法律追求平等

It seems difficult to ask a person to easily obey the just or disobey the unjust. Whether a law could make sense rests with the attitude of both citizens and rulers towards the peace and stableness in the society.

附word

agnes2010UID: 2794922

7# 谦行天下

小谦把提纲和文章一起发来了，我就在里面一并做修改~
谦，我对这个题目本来就认识听不足的 所以改得不好 希望理解哦~

ISSUE17
Agnes 改 谦行天下

Red-语法词法问题
Blue-好词好句
Pink-不理解的地方
Green-小结

Law which is（这里语法有误，which is换做“，”，后面的a system of rules做同位语即可） a system of rules, is the primary social mediator of relationships between people because it shapes the economics, politics and society in numerous ways. Laws can be divided into two categories—— just and unjust ones, but since law can only represent the interest or stake of a certain group of people, the just and unjust is relative. It is an undeniable truth that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws, and take serious action to unjust laws.
作者观点：
认为法律可以分为公平与不公平两种，这种界定是相对的。我们应该遵守公平的法律，但也要对不公平的法律作出相关的行动。

The standard of just and unjust laws is not a straightforward issue. We have no clear definition of just and unjust law. Different people hold different view, for example, Dr. Martin Luther King said that “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” From my point of view, laws always benefit a certain group, the majority or the minority, and harm the others. The just law needs to be debated by people and finally people agree to a conclusion. Consider, for example, although tax could cut down the personal income of citizens, we could not catalog the tax law as unjust when someone evade the tax. Another example some laws allow the abortion of mothers. While some regions forbid abortion, it is ex parte to classify the law as unjust law. Thus, we cannot judge laws by personal interests or ethnic bias.
法律的公正与否不能被简单界定，不同人有不同的观点：距离马丁和作者的个人观点。
有些法律对一部分人是有利的，对另一部分人是不利的。所以不能仅凭个人好恶和背景判定法律的公正与否。

Legal systems elaborate right and responsibilities. Every individual has responsibility to obey just laws, even when the law is opposite to personal interests, and enjoy their right, which preconditions（这个词放在这里词性不对吧~我对这句话理解不来） a stable and orderly society. Nations always strictly enforce the law with the help of army. It is people’s right and responsibility to obey the rules.
个人无论如何评判法律，都应该遵守法律，确保社会和谐。(我觉得这一段的观点和首段的主观点有点偏差，首段说是要遵守公正的法律，把范围缩小了)

However, to change the unjust law also is（also这样用有些中式英语的感觉~）
the responsibility of citizens, for doing so will help improve the legal system of a nation. The reforming of unjust law always takes a long time. Laws could be unjust due to wrong conventions or misjudgment of justices. In the famous movie The Shawshank Redemption, the two heroes are victims of unjust laws which elude the existential unjust law（不理解这一句~望解释）. In real world, reason people use non-violence movement to resist unjust law to avoid innocent death. For instance, in the civil war, Dr King emancipated the blacks without guns. Nowadays, it is common （to see that）officials collect the opinion from people, discuss in small scale conference and submit to the advanced parliaments to discuss. The reformation of unjust law passes when most people support.
然而，个人应帮助改革不公的法律，用非暴力的首段来促进改革。

In conclusion, just law ensures the stable（stablity） of a society and every citizen need（s） to obey just laws. People also have responsibility to help reform unjust law by non-violent ways. The justice of law is relative to a certain group of people, and when people judge the law, numerous of debate need to be progressed to reach a reasonable conclusion of the law.


我觉得谦的总体思路是：法律公正与否不能根据人的主观想法判断，是相对的概念——不管公正与否都应遵守维护社会安定——即使有不公平之处，应用非暴力的手段促进改革。
和我的想法类似~
感觉行文蛮流畅的，词句丰富，也有例子的支撑~是我所欠缺的地方。学习！
本身对这个题目就不太懂…所以也不知道改的是否恰当~

2010-7-10

附上word~