issue17

ilikeappleUID: 135385

好久没贴了，不知道现在是处于什么水平。大家知无不言3x

2. 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.


synopsis:
agree
1, abiding by the just laws is essential for a society to keep stable
2, however, there are laws which are unjust and detrimental to the development of the society, therefore people should be against bravely and contribute to the evolution of laws.
3, but the resistance of the public against laws should be adequately controlled, otherwise it might be abused, and consequently damage the stability of the society.


Like other standards, laws, established by the authorities, are strongly associated with culture and interests of government of that time and have to experience a process of evolution. That is, there are always two sets of laws--just ones and unjust ones; if the laws take only the interests of the authorities into consideration, while neglecting those of the general public, they are likely to be detrimental to the society. As members of a society, individuals should take the responsibility to obey just laws, and at the same time, do not hesitate to resist the unjust laws and then strive to change them for the better.

It is no denying that abiding by the just laws is essential for a society to keep stable and to create a favorable environment for the individuals to work and live safely. Suppose there were no laws to punish crimes such as theft, murder and burglary, the legal rights of propriety would not have been secured and people would have to live in fear that they were likely to be shot and robbed in daylight. Similarly, without laws to regulate the economic activities, the markets would be in a chaos: confidential information were randomly stolen by business spies from competitive companies and great damages were brought about to the company concerned; and profiteers were rampant in making great profits at the cost of the interests of the general consumers. Although all these could not be eliminated completely by executing these laws, they do help to work as deterrent to criminals and thus contribute to establish a healthier and safer society for the public.

Unfortunately, however, given the limitation of the authorities, there are also unjust laws in every society, most of which are detrimental to the development of the community if not changed in time. For example, several decades ago when India was still under the control of England, the colonial government laid down some laws inhibiting the Indians from sharing the legal rights with the English people, such as rights to vote. These biased laws aroused the anger and rebellion of the Indian people; among them there was a man called Gandhi who led the famous Nonviolence Movement, which in the end managed to encourage the general public to resist the unjust laws imposed on them and foster the combination of efforts from all over the India; and eventually this concerted fight against prejudicial laws facilitate the end of the unjust government of the British.

However, while encouraging brave protest of the public against the unjust laws, we should also be careful to abuse the right to challenge laws; otherwise, it could also be detrimental to the stability of the society. The opinions from the public, although sometimes being able to reflect the true legal condition, can be biased and incomplete because of their limited knowledge on laws and possible short sight on complex problems. If everyone is free to question the established laws and be against it, chances are that the society is threatened to instability, or even worse, disintegration. Therefore, appropriate guidance should be made to ensure that the society may not be greatly troubled by people abusing their right to challenge laws.

In sum, every individual should be accountable for the maintenance of stability of the society by abiding by the just laws, while resisting the unjust laws and struggling to eliminate them. However, this right should not be abused in case the society be in the danger to be bogged in a mess.

ilikeappleUID: 135385

no one responses to my essay; so i have to do it by myself in case it is overwhelmed :)

zhamiaUID: 97673

我觉得你第四段说应慎重使用反抗不公平的法律的权利没有说明白，如何慎重，靠国家，社会，还是个人。不过也可能是因为我的观点和你相反吧，我认为人们不能反抗法律，法律只有完善和不完善之分，而完善法律是政府和社会的责任，正好我也写了一篇，交流交流。

1。不同的人对公平和不公平的看法不同，而且公平总是相对的，所以不可能有一个标准判断公平和不公平；
2。反抗法律只能带来混乱（这段没好好写）
3。法律只有完善的和不完善的，而且完善法律是社会和政府的责任

For different people, just and unjust have different meanings, so it is impossible to make a standard about which laws people should obey and which laws people should disobey as the title statement said. There are only two types of laws: complete and incomplete. And it is not the responsibility of individual to improve the laws, but of the government and society.

To begin with, just laws and unjust laws are so obscure that people could not get a unify definition. Laws served for most people, whereas not all people, so their responsibility is to protect the right of most people. And in most people’s mind, they mark the just things and the unjust things by whether their right is protected or deprived. So it is apparent that there must be just things for some people which are unjust for another people. For example, in a lawsuit, there are plaintiffs and defendants, and at last there are the winner and loser, sometimes it is difficult to justify who should be protected. So when reach a result, it is possible that one feel the law is just but other feel unjust. Moreover, because the laws is a rule, that dose not mean they should protect people who are right by people’s own words. Laws need facts and data to testify the truth. For a simple example, if people lend some money to another people and have nothing to ensure it, and even no other people know it. So when he request the law to help him get the money, it is almost impossible. In this point, Laws is unjust because it can not protect the people who really lend money in fact. But Laws are just because no things can ensure that this people did not lie. So, if people could not give strong data the just laws may seem unjust in his mind.

From this point, it is impossible to agree that every individual to disobey or even resist the unjust laws in their minds. The result of it only is to lead to a disorder .

In fact, there are two types of laws, but not just ant unjust, whereas complete and incomplete. And all laws are incomplete because they could not reach their goal which is to protect the right of most people and truth. It is impossible to make laws to be effective in every circumstance, and the effect of laws must be different when there are different cases, districts in which the cases happened, and who sentenced it. So laws should be as detail as possible, so that they could proper for most conditions. In addition, as the development of the society, laws should also develop continuously to make the need of people. Moreover, the responsibility of developing laws owe to the government and the society. Government should ensure that the laws are proper for the development of society and they could protect most people. The institutes in the society, such as masses, should superintend the  enforcing of the laws.

In sum, laws are incomplete, the government and the society have the responsibility to develop them. As for the individual, people should strengthen the notion of laws and protect their own right actively.

ilikeappleUID: 135385

当然,我同意你关于法律存在完善与不完善之分,而在不同人眼中,对于公正与不公正也会有明显的差异,但是,我觉得作为法律,应该有个一自己的衡量标准,即它是符合公平\公正\原则的,就像原先的印度殖民时期法律就是带有明显的偏见,可能在当局者眼中没什么,但是从客观标准来看,你能说它是公正的吗?且不说公正不公正,即使是不完善,人们也有责任去反对它,从而推动它向完善的方向发展.试想,统治阶级总会那么心甘情愿的改革法律吗?有时候是需要来自与民众的力量的.

还有,关于你的essay，我觉得观点不错，但是论述不是很清晰，尤其是第二段，不要说我一个中国人都搅不清楚，头脑简单的老外更别提了。

个人观点而已。能讨论一下真的很好。我觉得倒是可以先界定一下所谓的法律公正与不公正，然后展开论述

zhamiaUID: 97673

谢谢呀！
你的评论真是一针见血，我练了一段时间了，但最近觉得很沮丧，作文还是老样子，最大的提高也就是思想和观点，不像刚开始无从下手，但也只是一部分题目会有思路，而且还不错，相当一部分还是没想法，对，在看完题目后，脑子里感觉什么也没有，都不理解题目在说什么。
自己写的东西更是自己都不愿意看，写的时候就觉得很多词不会用，表达不出自己的意思。总而言之，思想简单，句子简单，用词也简单，还罗嗦，不清晰。写作就是没办法有显著提高，现在真是没什么信心了。

关于法律的公正性，我觉得你的例子是建立在殖民政府的，也就是强权政府，而现在是民主社会，会有很多措施防止这种法律，政府会有监督机构，社会上有新闻，舆论，等等。其实我也不反对你的关于民众有责任和权利推动法律的改革上，我想只是我们的重点不同。但民众如何抗议还真是个问题，闹不好就成了法轮功了。

ilikeappleUID: 135385

所以我提到了应该有一定的度，否则会造成社会的动荡，甚至disintegration
其实民主政府就没有问题了马？美国标榜民主，可还不是存在很多种族歧视的法律条文，要不是路德一帮子人努力，现在情况还会很糟糕。

我觉得现在面临的最大问题不是语言表达，而是论证的观点以及结构，ETS有的问题真的让你无从下手，太抽象了