issue178 legislation&law Vs human nature 越来越不象样子了，好象。

blooming_leeUID：135884

不知道表达清楚没有。
哪位看官能帮帮忙，
根据我的writing列出提纲，
我再看看和我自己设计的提纲有什么出入。

偶是十分想知道，
在你眼里，
偶到底都说了些什么呀。
谢先。

It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. Law cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds.
==========
==========
There is not doubt that laws can control and place limits on people's behavior, while it is not obvious whether legislation could reform human nature or could change what is in people's hearts and minds. After deep research of the role that legislation, as well as that of the laws, plays in this democratic society, which is marked both with individual freedom and social unity, the intricate relation between people's nature and the restriction of people's nature could be appreciated as follows.

It is of great importance to notice the dynamic role that legislation plays on people. Legislation, which has been conceived as limitations generally wrongly, is the way that government expects the people to combine with. Admitted there are some limits put on people's behaviors, which are morally extreme behaviors threading the stability of the society, generally speaking, people feel free and save by abiding the laws. Legislation, to some extent, is the protector of individual freedom; this conception is widely accepted by most people in most nations in the world. As people are apt to do according to the rules, gradually there is going to be a behavior and moral standard; namely 'what should be done and what should not' or 'what's right and what's wrong'. Since the background defers, legislation in different nations defer from that of each other. Nevertheless once the standard was established, people are tending to take it with the expectation to be accepted by the fellows in the same circumstance. Thus in this sense, legislation owns the initiative forming people's nature, and consequently limits people's behavior without much fierce conflict.

But referring to the more elaborate issue on reforming, things become more complex. Normally, every kind of reforming takes place only in the situation that furious conflicts burst, such as rebuilding of the political system after revolution or alternation of power form one administration to another. In such cases, when the conflict is indispensable, legislation plays a tough role, which is enacted with forces apparently. To gain a transparent understanding of the consequence of forced legislation, by seeing form the historical standpoint, it is not hard to find out factual elements triggering the riots, and one is easy to conclude that forced legislation, which killed the spirits of liberty and democratism, is always the last and then most stupid choice of a desperate government. Oppositely, promising government knows how to take advantage of legislation, especially when the hidden goal is to reform. The tricky point is to let 'guiding' take place of 'reforming'. To be simple, most of the time reforming by legislation with enforcement meets with conflicts and ends up with failure; while guiding is to change people's nature by cultivating, which is more humanistic and more acceptable.

As said above, legislation could, if enacted in the correct way, affect or eventually reform the human nature; but it is not a universal dogma that the legislation and laws will settle every problem. Taking the Protestantism for example, when the American colonists first break away form Britain, the Constitution gives people the right to take whatever religion fits his/her belief. It is wise to separate legislation and religion since sometimes problems just could not be settled by legislation, especially when racial and cultural and religious differences involved. Thus in such circumstance, legislation should give away, respecting the basic human rights.

In conclusion, legislation and laws are of initiative and play a dynamic role in forming, as well as limiting, people's behavior. Further more, reforming of people's nature by legislation is virtually possible, as long as it is allowed for the procedure to take time and to be in a more harmonious pace. At last, when confliction between the government and the people could not be smoothed, legislation should have a loose control on certain dilemma or controversial issues, such as religion enforcement. All in all, legislation and laws are just tools to keep a union together and make it function efficiently. On some occasions they can be utilized to achieve certain goals such as changing people’s mind, while on others cannot. Thus using this tool efficiently requires analysis on each unique case. And only after deep study one can answer the question of what, and to what extant, legislation can do with people’s behaviors and human nature.

(714)

zhamiaUID：97673

你的第一段没有表明态度，说法律和人的本性的关系请看如下分解

第二段，认识legislation的动态重要性很重要。后面就说法律的重要性，又说不同国家的法律不同，人们愿意遵守法律因为想得到认同，最后总结从这一点来看，法律拥有人的本性的原动力，因此可以限制人们的行为

第三段，当谈到改革，事情更复杂了。这时法律扮演着暴力的角色，会扼杀自由，是愚蠢的，相反的，费解Oppositely, promising government knows how to take advantage of legislation, especially when the hidden goal is to reform. The tricky point is to let 'guiding' take place of 'reforming'. To be simple, most of the time reforming by legislation with enforcement meets with conflicts and ends up with failure; while guiding is to change people's nature by cultivating, which is more humanistic and more acceptable. 是不是说法律要起引导作用吧。

第四段，如果法律行使得当的话会改变人的本性，但并不是机械的

第五段，总结，法律某种程度上可以改变人的本性，但当有冲突时，法律要宽松，起到协调作用，应有效的行使法律。在何种程度上法律对人的行为和本性起作用需要进一步的研究

总的来说，费解呀费解，我觉得你自己的思路也不是很清楚，要不为什么在结尾反复地说一个问题，结尾写那么长。把你的提纲贴出来看看。

我的提纲：
法律是强制的，是惩罚，人们的内心应通过教育等方式来改变
1.法律是用来保护大多数人的利益，惩罚罪恶的
2.法律不能改变人的内心
3.人们的内心是长期培养的，是受环境影响的，只有教育可以改变

wendysunUID：113798

同意zhamia的看法
首段没提出自己的观点，只是说看下面的分析。
二段说法律的动态重要性。接下来先说说法律的作用，由于法律规定的渗透，人们会形成一些新的行为标准。接着说各个国家立法不同，people are tending to take it with the expectation to be accepted by the fellows in the same circumstance. 这句的fellows指的是什么根本没看出来。最后总结立法可以创造人的本性，因此可以限制人的行为。
三段说随着改革的推进，事情变得复杂了，下面说改革是在激烈的冲突中产生的，举了例子说明当冲突必不可少时，法律是强制性的，从历史角度看，旧政府压制暴动的强制性立法是错误的。相反，引导人们改革则是更好的办法。最后总结有强制性的法律来进行改革最终走向失败，而引导则是更人性化的方式。

四段说法律如果能正确应用，可以影响和改变人的本性，但法律不是万能的，以新教为例子，说明有些情况是以其他的方式而不是以法律解决的。
最后一段总结法律是主动和动态的，可以限制人们的行为。但是在有些情况下法律的执行要宽松。法律只是维护统一的工具。在一些情况下，法律可以改变人的思想，有时则不能。法律的执行要以事情的情况而定，只有通过进一步的研究才可确定法律在何种程度上对人的行为及人的本性到底有什么样的影响。
可以看出你的思路是要肯定法律控制限制人们的行为，但在某些情况下，法律可以改变人的本性，但要看法律如何运用，可你最后的一句话有时再让人费解，并且有时觉得你在论述时说了一些无关的东西，搞不懂你在说什么，一句话，看得我好晕:P

blooming_leeUID：135884

我觉得‘立法’和‘规束人性’的关系本来就很复杂，
计划用“推演”的方式得出结论。
既：
分析、证明在先；
观点在最后（推导）得出。

===开头：
不赞同题目的说法，不能用肯定或者否定的态度来简单的回答“立法是否束缚了人性自由”这个问题。
===1，必须承认立法对人们的道德准则和行为规范有一定能动性，即可以通过立法建立被人们广为接受的行为准则。
===2，然而强制性的立法，既企图用强迫的方法让人民接受某些法令，是愚蠢的。‘强制’只会带来‘反抗’；明智的政府则采取‘引导’，而非‘强迫’，的方式使人们接受新的立法。
===3，即使立法对人性的form和reform有能动性，也不能企图用这个方法去解决一切问题；比如宗教信仰。立法必须尊重“人性自由”的原则。当出现这种情况的时候，法律则应该作出一定的让步，否则冲突是无法避免的，而且后果是严重的。
===结尾
总结上述内容。

blooming_leeUID：135884

好象把问题复杂化了。。。。
我个人比较喜欢用‘层层深入’的方法写作，
而不太喜欢‘并列式’的论证。
并列式的看起来比较有条理，我承认，
可是比较难以深入的探讨某些问题。
或许是我驾御文字的工夫还不够。
。。。。。。
下次，换简单的结构写吧。

oopsoops1979UID：112102

The first two paras might be revised as:

There is not doubt that laws can control and place limits on people's behavior, while it is not obvious whether legislation could reform human nature or could change what is in people's hearts and minds. After deep research of the role that legislation, as well as that of the laws, plays in this democratic society, which is marked both with individual freedom and social unity, the intricate relation between people's nature and the restriction of people's nature could be appreciated as follows.

It is no doubt that laws can restrain and place (why use place? what do you want to say?) limitation on people's behavior, while it is remaining elusive that whether legislation could reform human nature or alter those established in hearts and minds. The role of legislation as well as the laws in this democratic society being marked with both individual freedom and social unity, the intricate relation between people's nature and the confinement of people's nature might be elucidated as following.

PS: the last sentence I did not understand. what do you want to say?
    If you are not sure if the complicated sentence can express clearly what you wish to say, you can just use the simple sentence.

It is of great importance to notice the dynamic role that legislation plays on people. Legislation, which has been conceived as limitations generally wrongly, is the way that government expects the people to combine with. Admitted there are some limits put on people's behaviors, which are morally extreme behaviors threading the stability of the society, generally speaking, people feel free and save by abiding the laws. Legislation, to some extent, is the protector of individual freedom; this conception is widely accepted by most people in most nations in the world. As people are apt to do according to the rules, gradually there is going to be a behavior and moral standard; namely 'what should be done and what should not' or 'what's right and what's wrong'. Since the background defers, legislation in different nations defer from that of each other. Nevertheless once the standard was established, people are tending to take it with the expectation to be accepted by the fellows in the same circumstance. Thus in this sense, legislation owns the initiative forming people's nature, and consequently limits people's behavior without much fierce conflict.

It is of paramount importance to notice the dynamic role that legislation acts on people. Legislation, which probably has been inappropriately conceived as limitations, is the way that government expects people to combine with. (? I suspect this point!) People feel free and safe by abiding by the laws, notwithstanding some forced limitations do apply on people's behaviors which deadly threat the stability of our society. Legislation, to some extent, is the protector of individual freedom; this conception is widely accepted by most people in most nations in the world. As people are apt to do according to the rules, gradually there is going to be a behavior and moral standard; namely 'what should be done and what should not' or 'what is right and what is wrong'. Since the background defers, legislation displays diversities in every nation. Nevertheless once the standard is established, people are tending to take it with the expectation to be accepted by the fellows in the same circumstance. Thus from this perspective, legislation owns the initiative forming people's nature, and consequently limits people's behavior without much fierce conflict.

blooming_leeUID：135884

先谢过。
我还得多看几遍才行。。。。

blooming_leeUID：135884

偶在文字方面的缺陷比较严重，还是结构方面，还是逻辑？？

wendysunUID：113798

看过你好些文章，感觉你的逻辑一般还都讲得通，文字的驾御能力还不是很好，有时好像过于强调句子的复杂性把原本好理解的东西弄复杂了，严重影响了读者的理解。暂提一点：）

blooming_leeUID：135884

我是听说GRE写作的句子应该向GRE阅读的句子看齐。。。。
那都是些很绕~~~~~~的东东啊。
偶被误导了吗？
其实写简单句子容易许多呢。

blooming_leeUID：135884

谢谢wendysun，
你说：“暂提一点”
还有其他建议吗？
i am all ears!!!