issue178

ken0405UID: 124994

178"It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds."
Position:Actually, because laws can regulate people's behavior, which is the representation of human minds, it is possible for law to exert indirect influence on people's minds. However, what should be pointed out is that law has not the function of changing human minds directly.

1.To begin with, generally speaking, law can shape people’s behaviors.

2.On the second hand, in a sense, people's behaviors, which are always motivated by internal characters and present internal characters, can in turn influence people’s internal characters.举了racial discrimination的例证

3.In the third analysis, however, law, as the outside force, cannot directly determine human nature, which here I define as human internal characters

要好好学习天天向上咯
各位牛人，我的文章好不好看懂？？？条理清楚吗？？？
我说的是
1，law可以决定behaviors
2，law通过决定behaviors而indirectly影响人们的minds
3，但是laws不可以直接决定minds


Nowadays, there increasingly arises much concern about whether laws can change what's in people's hearts and minds. As the assertion presented by speaker, some people claim that although laws can place limits on people's behavior, law cannot control people's minds. Actually, because laws can regulate people's behavior, which is the representation of human minds, it is possible for law to exert indirect influence on people's minds. However, what should be pointed out is that law has not the function of changing human minds directly.

To begin with, generally speaking, law can shape people’s behaviors. In order to illustrate this point clearly, let's turn our attention to our daily lives. Through protecting rights of people, laws can prevent the sexual and racial discrimination. Through punishing drug use and alcoholism, laws prevent people from degenerating. Through punishing, Laws can protect private property and attack crimes, such as thief, rob, kidnap, rape, and murder, which can bring harm to victims. And through show what people should obey and follow, laws regulate people to act in a loyal and responsible manner on the behalf of society. Accordingly, laws, which are employed as a powerful weapon to maintain the stability of society by governing classes, can regulate people's behavior.

On the second hand, in a sense, people's behaviors, which are always motivated by internal characters and present internal characters, can in turn influence people’s internal characters. And hence, through regulating people's behaviors, laws place an indirectly influence on people's minds. For instance, after the Civil War, Lincoln, the president of America, enacted law to emancipate the slave of South America. Correspondingly, black slaves were set free legitimately; black people gained their rights in the protection of laws; and those who treat black people as slaves would be published for their crimes. Many years later, through the efforts of many great figures in American history, such as Martin Luther king, government made a set of laws to protect the equal rights of black, which were once granted as the privilege of White American. Gradually, racial discrimination disappeared and Americans accept the idea that everyone born as equal, which dramatically accelerate the step, which American democratization marches. Consequently, it is unwise to erase, ignore, or play down the indirect influence of law on human nature.

In the third analysis, however, law, as the outside force, cannot directly determine human nature, which here I define as human internal characters. First, the failure of Prohibition in the 1930s can proved that it is a mistake to legislate the morality, which belongs to human nature. In addition, South Africa's Mandela is another case in the point. South Africa's laws, which had imprisoned Mandela for nearly one quarter of a century, cannot prevent Mandela from fighting for antiracism. Second, another case in the point involves some social problems. Although every government made laws to prevent hungry, poverty, crime, and war, these social problems could be found in every corner of human history. This phenomenon shows that laws cannot remove these social problems completely, which stem from self-interest and greedy belonging to human nature. Finally, laws cannot prevent human curiosity to the outside world. Laws cannot prevent people from pursuing truth and acquiring new knowledge. The story between Galileo and Inquisition is case in the point. Although inquisition made regulation to prevent Galileo from continuing his researches, Galileo's mind never stopped exploring the unknown world, which was motivated by Galileo's nature, the curiosity of unknown world. From the discussion above, one can readily find that law cannot directly place limitation on human nature.

In sum, as mentioned above, law can shape people's behavior. Simultaneously, laws exert some indirect influence on human nature, through regulating human behaviors, which are motivated by human's minds. However, law has no the ability to determine human hearts and minds.

ken0405UID: 124994

我一步一步慢慢的爬
爬呀爬。。。。。。
原来计划全打乱
可是我要继续坚持
面对困难，我唯一可以做的就是坚持

不好意思的说
这是我的第32篇issue
呵呵
是不是小吃一惊？？
看样子，考前我要写到50去了
怪吓人的
呵呵
水平呀，
你什么时候才能长大？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？

happyman2000UID: 136936

178"It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds."
Position:Actually, because laws can regulate people's behavior, which is the representation of human minds, it is possible for law to exert indirect influence on people's minds. However, what should be pointed out is that law（s） has (have) not the function of changing human minds directly.

1.To begin with, generally speaking, law can shape people’s behaviors.

2.On the second hand, in a sense, people's behaviors, which are always motivated by internal characters and present internal characters, can in turn influence people’s internal characters.举了racial discrimination的例证

3.In the third analysis, however, law, as the outside force, cannot directly determine human nature, which here I define as human internal characters

要好好学习天天向上咯
各位牛人，我的文章好不好看懂？？？条理清楚吗？？？
我说的是
1，law可以决定behaviors
2，law通过决定behaviors而indirectly影响人们的minds
3，但是laws不可以直接决定minds


Nowadays, there increasingly arises much concern about whether laws can change what's in people's hearts and minds. As the assertion presented by speaker, some people claim that although laws can place limits on people's behavior, law cannot control people's minds. Actually, because laws can regulate people's behavior, which is the representation of human minds, it is possible for law(s) to exert indirect influence on people's minds. However, what should be pointed out is that law has not the function of changing human minds directly.

To begin with, generally speaking, law can shape people’s behaviors. In order to illustrate this point clearly, let's turn our attention to our daily lives. Through protecting rights of people, laws can prevent the sexual and racial discrimination. Through punishing drug use(我记得是drugs abuse，我不肯定，请确认！ )and alcoholism, laws prevent people from degenerating. Through punishing, Laws can protect private property and attack crimes, such as thief, rob（她是名词吗？）, kidnap, rape, and murder, which can bring harm to victims. And through show（ing） what people should obey and follow, laws regulate people to act in a loyal and responsible manner on the behalf of society. Accordingly, laws, which are employed as a powerful weapon to maintain the stability of society by governing classes, can regulate people's behavior.

On the second hand, in a sense, people's behaviors, which are always motivated by internal characters and present internal characters, can in turn influence people’s internal characters. And hence, through regulating people's behaviors, laws place an indirectly influence on people's minds. For instance, after the Civil War, Lincoln, the president of America, enacted law to emancipate the slave of South America. Correspondingly, black slaves were set free legitimately; black people gained their rights in the protection of laws; and those who treat black people as slaves would be published for their crimes. Many years later, through the efforts of many great figures in American history, such as Martin Luther king, government made a set of laws to protect the equal rights of （the）black, which were once granted as the privilege of White American. Gradually, racial discrimination disappeared and Americans accept(begin to accept) the idea that everyone born(s) as equal, which dramatically accelerate the step, which American democratization marches.(这句话有些别扭，能否改造一下！) Consequently, it is unwise to erase, ignore, or play down the indirect influence of law on human nature. 我觉得这段写得很不错，林肯的例子很有说服力！

In the third analysis, however, law（S）, as the outside force, cannot directly determine human nature, which here I define as human internal characters. First, the failure of Prohibition in the 1930s can proved that it is(was) a mistake to legislate the morality, which belongs to human nature. In addition, South Africa's Mandela is another case in the point. South Africa's laws, which had imprisoned Mandela for nearly one quarter of a century, cannot prevent Mandela from fighting for antiracism. Second, another case in the point involves some social problems. Although every government made laws to prevent hungry, poverty, crime, and war, these social problems could be found in every corner of human history. This phenomenon shows that laws cannot remove these social problems completely, which stem from self-interest and greedy belonging to human nature. (社会问题与人的本质还是有区别的！)Finally, laws cannot prevent human curiosity to the outside world. Laws cannot prevent people from pursuing truth and acquiring new knowledge. The story between Galileo and Inquisition is case in the point. Although inquisition made regulation to prevent Galileo from continuing his researches, Galileo's mind never stopped exploring the unknown world, which was motivated by Galileo's nature, the curiosity of unknown world. From the discussion above, one can readily find that law cannot directly place limitation on human nature. 我觉得你未能很好地证明这一观点！
这段里面虽然由first,second等信号词，但看不出内容上的逻辑关系。

In sum, as mentioned above, law can shape people's behavior. Simultaneously, laws exert some indirect influence on human nature, through regulating human behaviors, which are motivated by human's minds. However, law has no the ability to determine human hearts and minds.（最后一段这么写，你看如何!  in sum, though law has not the ability to determine human hearts and minds directly, it still can shape people’s nature in an indirect manner by regulating human behaviors. ）
评论：1， 语言上，注意单复数，law, behavior在你文中议会是单数一会又是复数。时态也要把准。
2， 语言还是比较流畅的，意思也表达的比较清楚，但有些句子显得不够简练，复杂句套复杂句，但好像没有太多必要。
3， 关于内容，我觉得文章的观点不够集中，论述的东西比较散，没有形成一个有机整体。我建议你把其中某一个观点如第三段的观点作为主要观点加以详细论述，其它内容只需捎带着提一下就可以了。
仅供参考，欢迎排砖！

ken0405UID: 124994

xiexieing
duo xie
yiqijiayou

paisleyUID: 64183

Nowadays, there increasingly arises much concern ( 应该是concerns increasingly arise.  There不可以和动词连用 ) about whether laws can

And through show(这里应用showing) what people should obey and follow, laws regulate people to act in a loyal and responsible manner on the(the应去掉) behalf of society.

On the second(应是other吧?) hand,

Although every government made laws to prevent hungry(应是hunger), poverty, crime, and war,

第三段关于种族歧视的例子似乎长了些。我觉得最理想的样式是一段说理中穿插一小段例子，两到三句话，然后继续说理。这样感觉写作者非常得心应手，对说理和举例都是手到粘来。

我个人的意见是，法律是不能影响人性的。影响人性的是文化\艺术\风俗这些东西. 它们对人性的影响才是间接的。没有什么东西可以直接影响人性.(我是说普遍的人性, 对单个人来说，偶然的事件也有可能对他的性格产生巨大的影响). 而法律最多只能起到强化由文化/艺术/风俗所改变的人性, 它的是个”凝固”的作用. 不知道你赞不赞同我的意见. 如果你采纳，其实你的文章也不用完全推翻，某些地方作点修改就可以了。

还有ken，我不知道你个人情况如何，不敢随便说你是不是练习的太多。 但是我要提醒你一下，数量保证，质量更要保证，一篇ISSUE写出来之后要修改多次，其中暴露的问题务求以后避免再犯。这样提高也会明显的。


希望你也能多多修改其他朋友的文章。如果觉得自己的英文还不是特别好，那么不一定要改他们的词句, 提点结构上和想法上的建议也是好的。因为你不可能每个题目都练过来啊，看别人的题目，自己脑子过一遍,既可以给别人提建议，自己又多了一次训练的机会.为别人服务的人优先得到斑竹的修改哦！

咖啡沫沫UID: 127308

好好继续努力~