Issue17，终于写这道题了，欢迎点评，留链必返

hugeseaUID: 190158

12# hugesea  

没错，所以我在文章中不予讨论我考虑的这些问题；
但是，最普遍的道德标准是什么？封建社会的很多道德标准都是distorted的，也可以说根本都是错的（当然我没打算扯到封建社会去）
当局者迷我们就 ...
shadow1987 发表于 2010-7-26 19:16

既然谈到了issue 17，我也拿我的来一起讨论

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."


The speaker divides laws into two sorts: just and unjust, and appeals for every individual’s responsibility to obey just laws as well as disobey and resist unjust laws. As per my opinion, I agree with the speaker that there indeed are two types of laws and we are obligated to comply with the just laws. However, whether the unjust laws should be disobeyed is a question that need further discussing.

First of all, just as people can be divided by good and evil, laws can be classified by just and unjust. If a law is in line with the social justice and holds the basic standard of social morality, it would be sorted to the just group. Otherwise, it is an unjust law. For example, the US Constitution holds that truth that every citizen and resident alien is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and therefore it is a just law to every American people. Also, there have been many unjust laws during the whole human history, such as the laws that prescribe the amputations of thieves’ hands, the laws that deny women’s rights, the laws that require the punishment against homosexual persons. All these kinds of laws violate the basic social justice, and thus they are unjust laws. Therefore, there are two types of laws: just and unjust, and some say laws, no matter they are just or unjust, should be obeyed-or should they?

There is no doubt that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws. The implications are plain to see: for the sake of justice, people inevitably pursue the justice of their social system. Meanwhile, the just laws are the embodiments of social justice and the means to establish and maintain the justice of a social system. As a result, in order to realize justice, people have to obey just laws. Taken the US Constitution as an example again, it holds the basic social justice and truth that everyone is created equal, and therefore its principles are the foundation of the justice of American society. Hence, every American people have to abide by their Constitution.

However, in actuality, the positive laws of our society do not always fit the values of justice. When a law comes into conflict with social justice, it becomes a hard nut to crack that how to deal with the law. Firstly, if the legislative intent of unjust laws can be proved to come from the purpose of injustice, for example the pursuit of dictatorship, and if most people’s rights are violated by the laws, then we as citizens should disobey even resist such unjust laws. That is, under such a situation, it becomes a just claim for citizens to disobey unjust laws. Such disobedience and resistance are the upholding of social justice and the appeal for the most people’s sense of justice. Secondly, if unjust laws come from the unavoidable defects in the legislative process (e.g. the injustice arising from majority rules) in a just social system, and if the injustice arising from such laws does not exceed a certain degree, then we should acknowledge their binding effect. In other words, we as law-binding citizens have the responsibility to obey unjust laws under certain conditions. In fact, if we abandon a law in that it might not be perfect just, the dignity of the whole legal system would be undermined, and the whole society would be in the chaos of anarchy, and therefore the maintenance and pursuit of justice would become a kind of empty talk.

In conclusion, in a just social system, we as law-binding citizen should obey all effective laws. Even if a law is unjust, every individual should not disobey and resist it alone, and what an individual should do is to obey it first and appeal for the most people’s sense of justice to abolish it and amend it. Meanwhile, if an unjust law comes from the unjust legislative intent, we should definitely disobey and resist it.

shadow1987UID: 2605840

16# hugesea

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."


The speaker divides laws into two sorts: just and unjust, and appeals for that every individual has responsibility to obey just laws（personal suggestion: for formal essay, it would be well to write a complete sentence） as well as disobey and resist unjust laws. As per In my opinion, I agree with the speaker that there indeed are indeed two types of laws and we are obligated to comply with the just laws. However, whether the unjust laws should be disobeyed is a question that need further discussing.（开头段说得挺清楚的，最后一句建议能把对题目的看法概括一下）

First of all, just as people can be divided by into the good and the evil（be divided by解释成由什么分开，用在数学里表示被几除，like "ten be divided by five is two."）, laws can be classified by into the just and the unjust.(likewise, be classified by 是按什么分类的意思，后面一般加一个standard) If a law is in line with the social justice and holds the basic standard of social morality, it would be sorted to the just group. Otherwise, it is an unjust law. For example, the US Constitution holds that truth that every citizen and resident alien is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and therefore it is a just law to every American people. Also, there have been many unjust laws during the whole human history, such as the laws that prescribe the amputations of thieves’ hands, the laws that deny women’s rights, the laws that require the punishment against homosexual persons.（你要么全部用成the law，要么后面的全部省略，前面的用the laws） All these kinds of laws violate the basic social justice, and thus they are unjust laws. Therefore, I agree with that there are two types of laws: just and unjust., and  some Some people might argue that say laws, no matter they are just or unjust, should be obeyed-or should they? （最后一句话需要断句了，你前面是陈述句后面是疑问句。另：疑问句最好别作段落结尾句）（法律需要分成两类）

There is no doubt that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws. The implications are plain to see: for the sake of justice, people inevitably pursue the justice of their social system. Meanwhile, the just laws are the embodiments of social justice and the means to establish and maintain the justice of a social system. （上面这句话两个and中间连个comma都没有，全部是并列成分吗？你读读看，非常影响理解的。）As a result, in order to realize justice, people have to obey just laws. Taken the US Constitution as an example again, it holds the basic social justice and truth that everyone is created equal, and therefore its principles are the foundation of the justice of American society. Hence, every American people have to abide by their Constitution. （正面的法律需要遵守）

However, in actuality, the positive laws of our society do not always fit the values of justice. When a law comes into conflict with social justice, it becomes a hard nut to crack that how to deal with the law.（这句话说得不错！） Firstly, if the legislative intent of unjust laws can be proved to be mean come from the purpose of injustice, for example the pursuit of dictatorship, and if most people’s rights are violated by the laws, then we as citizens should disobey and even resist such unjust laws. That is, under such a situation, it becomes a just claim righteous action for citizens to disobey unjust laws. Such disobedience and resistance are the upholding of social justice and the appeal appealing for the most people’s sense of justice. Secondly, if unjust laws come from the unavoidable defects in the legislative process (e.g. the injustice arising from majority rules) in a just social system, and if the injustice arising from such laws does not exceed a certain degree, then we should acknowledge their binding effect. In other words, we as law-binding citizens who have the responsibility to obey unjust laws under certain conditions. In fact, if we abandon a law just due to its few flaw remains in that it might not be perfect just, the dignity of the whole legal system would be undermined, and the whole society would be in the chaos of anarchy, and therefore the maintenance and pursuit of justice would become a kind of empty talk. (你好纠结啊= =！呵呵，总是想说得面面俱到，会适得其反的，我的观点是写issue就得偏一点，在偏的同时顾及一下相反的方向，这才能成为一个好的观点。像你这样，前面说反抗unjust law会成为一种正义的行为，后面又说废除法律会让法律的尊严受到伤害，我知道，你的逻辑是很细腻的没有问题的，但是像你先前说的，毕竟就那么点字数，咋表达得那么细致呢？)

In conclusion, in a just social system, we as law-binding citizen should obey all effective laws. Even if a law is unjust, every individual should not disobey and resist it alone, and what an individual should do is to obey it first and appeal for the most people’s sense of justice to abolish it and amend it. Meanwhile, if an unjust law comes from the unjust legislative intent, we should definitely disobey and resist it.

你的很多短语用得很多很丰富，有些我是查了才知道意思的，比如arising from：由……引起。有些用得挺好，有些则要注意一下搭配。思想方面要说的倒数第二段说得差不多了，你可以对我的文章动刀了，哈哈

shadow1987UID: 2605840

Fxxk, wht a sissy ad! 求助！怎么删广告贴啊啊啊啊啊？？

hugeseaUID: 190158

16# hugesea  

However, in actuality, the positive laws of our society do not always fit the values of justice. When a law comes into conflict with social justice, it becomes a hard nut to crack that how to deal with the law.（这句话说得不错！） Firstly, if the legislative intent of unjust laws can be proved to be mean come from the purpose of injustice, for example the pursuit of dictatorship, and if most people’s rights are violated by the laws, then we as citizens should disobey and even resist such unjust laws. That is, under such a situation, it becomes a just claim righteous action for citizens to disobey unjust laws. Such disobedience and resistance are the upholding of social justice and the appeal appealing for the most people’s sense of justice. Secondly, if unjust laws come from the unavoidable defects in the legislative process (e.g. the injustice arising from majority rules) in a just social system, and if the injustice arising from such laws does not exceed a certain degree, then we should acknowledge their binding effect. In other words, we as law-binding citizens who have the responsibility to obey unjust laws under certain conditions. In fact, if we abandon a law just due to its few flaw remains in that it might not be perfect just, the dignity of the whole legal system would be undermined, and the whole society would be in the chaos of anarchy, and therefore the maintenance and pursuit of justice would become a kind of empty talk. (你好纠结啊= =！呵呵，总是想说得面面俱到，会适得其反的，我的观点是写issue就得偏一点，在偏的同时顾及一下相反的方向，这才能成为一个好的观点。像你这样，前面说反抗unjust law会成为一种正义的行为，后面又说废除法律会让法律的尊严受到伤害，我知道，你的逻辑是很细腻的没有问题的，但是像你先前说的，毕竟就那么点字数，咋表达得那么细致呢？)
shadow1987 发表于 2010-7-26 22:53

我觉得你没看懂我这一段啊，可能是我写得不清楚吧

其实这段意思很简单：对于unjust law我们不能简单的说遵守还是抵制。到底是应该遵守，还是抵制，则应该看unjust law的立法目的。
第一，如果一个unjust law的立法目的proved to come from an unjust purpose，则我们应该抵制。（看来少了例子还是不行，我为了节省字数，这里我没有写例子。这样的例子不难找：比如：美国独立战争的导火索：英国殖民者的unjust的税务法律；正是当时美国殖民地广大人民对这些不平等的税法的抵制最终导致了波澜壮阔的美国独立战争。）

第二，如果在一个民主社会，一个unjust law并非出自unjust的立法目的，而来自立法过程中不可避免的缺陷（例如少数服从多数的原则，也就是为了服从少数服从多数的原则，one law损害了一些人的利益，而成为unjust law）。我们就不能简单的抵制了事。我们应该做的是先服从，然后寻求途径改进。

不知道我这么说清楚点了没.....上面那一段，我就是按这个思路写的

hugeseaUID: 190158

Fxxk, wht a sissy ad! 求助！怎么删广告贴啊啊啊啊啊？？
shadow1987 发表于 2010-7-27 08:28

发消息给斑竹，请求帮助

shadow1987UID: 2605840

20# hugesea

没问题我看懂了，像你回复的那样，这是一个分类讨论的问题，也就是说这应该是两部分内容，你中文都分两部分说，英文怎么就写成一段了？我的看法是，没错你说得很对，例子少了，一个独立段落里面的纯理论分析就显得多了，就像GRE阅读一样，整个一个zigzag的感觉，不是不好理解吗？（纯属个人看法，求讨论，莫骂人，呵呵）

shadow1987UID: 2605840

21# hugesea

瞬间就搞定了，本版的斑竹效率超高！！赞一个~

hugeseaUID: 190158

20# hugesea  

没问题我看懂了，像你回复的那样，这是一个分类讨论的问题，也就是说这应该是两部分内容，你中文都分两部分说，英文怎么就写成一段了？我的看法是，没错你说得很对，例子少了，一个独立段落里面的纯理论分析就显得多了，就像GRE阅读一样，整个一个zigzag的感觉，不是不好理解吗？（纯属个人看法，求讨论，莫骂人，呵呵）shadow1987 发表于 2010-7-27 08:49

也太小看我，也太小看GTER了吧

哈哈，我就是要骂你，也只会骂你的文章，嘻嘻

aoweiUID: 2848764

一楼贴出来的文章，我个人觉得issue写的东西要强调个人对事情的理解，所以不需要去说题目对或者错，同意或者不同意，需要去指责批驳么？
我个人觉得写issue的思路应该是：
1、分析题目所处在的环境，为什么会有这么一个说法？
2、针对于某个现象，个人的观点是什么？
就算是去说对方的漏洞，也是要为自己的论点服务，不能为批驳而批驳

shadow1987UID: 2605840

23# hugesea

哈哈，骂吧，尽管骂，对我文章骂得越狠对我只会越有帮助！谢谢你！