Issue17 公正与不公正的法律，请大家帮忙看看，谢谢！

FantasizingUID: 142282

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.

Here begins my essay:
   
    The claim seems from a warm-blooded warrior who insists that everyone should fight for justice. Then, if the claim is right, we have to first know what laws are just and what are not.

    In the endless stream of human history, to begin with, no law can be definitely just. This stands as a result of the boundary of humanity's knowledge. Laws designed by Julius Cesar, by Napoleon, by President Franklin Roosevelt, are all perfect laws respect by their people in their ages, yet reviewed with the modern standard we would undoubtedly say that they contained some unjust parts.

    Even considered merely for people in a certain age, it is still difficult to judge whether a law is just or not. For instance, a bill that allows universities to raise fees is passed. It will has two results: on the one side, since universities would possess a richer fund, they could do more for the students' education; on the other side, many students would not be able to pay the fees and have to quit, which is a significant disservice to them. Everything, including laws, has two sides, and if taking into account that people all have their own value systems it is simply impossible to judge whether a law is just.

    Moreover, even when it is sure that a law is unjust, it is not always appropriate to resist it. This is because that laws promulgated by a government operate as a whole, and if one of them is resisted, others will be affected--maybe not able to run fluently--until they are adjusted. Things with further destructiveness is that following this, some people will try to find fault with other laws and resist them with the excuse that they are unjust too. All this will throw the society into chaos, and it is possible to harm people more than obeying the unjust law.

    Here we can come to the conclusion that unless the government is severely corrupted and should be overthrown, citizens should obey all the laws, and if they do think the law is unjust they can discuss with the government. Otherwise, which is suggested in the claim that everyone should disobey and resist the unjust laws, the result can be that anyone would be able to resist any laws colliding his own profits, and thus be the extermination of the civilized world.

imongUID: 140258

请先看一下公告，关于发作文的标题和内文格式。也希望你能够加入到作文互助评改中来，谢谢。

FantasizingUID: 142282

好的我去看，不好意思。

FantasizingUID: 142282

改成这样版主认为可以了吗？: )

imongUID: 140258

可以了。

The claim seems from a warm-blooded warrior who insists that everyone should fight for justice. Then, if the claim is right, we have to first know 都能看出来中文的痕迹：我们必须先知道……怎么能这样写，至少first也不能放这里啊 what laws are just and what are not. 最好明确一下你的论点

In the endless stream of human history, to begin with, no law can be definitely just. This stands as a result of the boundary of humanity's knowledge. Laws designed by Julius Cesar, by Napoleon, by President Franklin Roosevelt, are all perfect laws respect by their people in their ages, yet reviewed with the modern standard we would undoubtedly say that they contained some unjust parts.
第一段说age和just的关系
Even considered merely for people in a certain age, it is still difficult to judge刚才还能分开呢，怎么又变成difficult to judge了？ whether a law is just or not. For instance, a bill that allows universities to raise fees is passed. It will has two results: on the one side, since universities would possess a richer fund, they could do more for the students' education; on the other side, many students would not be able to pay the fees and have to quit, which is a significant disservice to them. Everything, including laws, has two sides, and if taking into account that people all have their own value systems it is simply impossible to judge whether a law is just.

Moreover, even when it is sure that a law is unjust, it is not always appropriate to resist it. 这能是moreover的关系吗？好好想想，这个moreover用得让人跳楼。This is because that laws promulgated by a government operate as a whole, and if one of them is resisted, others will be affected--maybe not able to run fluently--until they are adjusted. Things with further destructiveness is that following this, some people will try to find fault with other laws and resist them with the excuse that they are unjust too. All this will throw the society into chaos, and it is possible to harm people more than obeying the unjust law.

Here we can come to the conclusion that unless the government is severely corrupted and should be overthrown, citizens should obey all the laws, and if they do think the law is unjust they can discuss with the government. Otherwise, which is suggested in the claim that everyone should disobey and resist the unjust laws, the result can be that anyone would be able to resist any laws colliding his own profits, and thus be the extermination of the civilized world

精华区关于这个题目的讨论和分析都有不少，自己找一下。这篇文章写得不好，用词方面就不说了，行文基本上是想到什么就写什么，全局感，全局的组织很不好。先参照参照别人的文章吧，自己的文章和思路和别人的比较一下，找找差距。

FantasizingUID: 142282

好的谢谢，刚开始写毕竟没有经验，继续努力继续努力

gdhdannyUID: 125843

The claim seems from（seem from什么意思？） a warm-blooded warrior who insists that everyone should fight for justice. Then, if the claim is right, we have to first know （know first）what（感觉应该用which） laws are just and what are not.

In the endless stream of human history, to begin with（建议这个放在开头）, no law can be definitely（absolutely） just. This stands as a result of the boundary of humanity's knowledge. Laws designed by Julius Cesar, by Napoleon, by President Franklin Roosevelt, are all perfect（题外话，nothing is perfect，所以这个词慎用） laws respect（respected） by their people in their ages（at that time）, yet reviewed with the modern standard we would undoubtedly say that they contained some unjust parts.
这段可以展开，特别是最后一句话的后面还有很多东西可以说。即使布局例子，也该从理论上分析一下，比如为什么说历史意义很重要？他们的时效性出了大众的反应还体现在什么地方？

Even considered merely for people in a certain age（period of time）, it is still difficult to judge whether a law is just or not. For instance, a bill that allows universities to raise fees is passed. It will has two results: on the one side（hand）, since universities would possess a richer（larger） fund, they could do more for the students' education; on the other side, many students would not be able to pay the fees and have to quit, which is a significant disservice to them（为什么没有其他途径解决呢？好像是argu的错误阿）. Everything, including laws, has two sides, and if taking into account that people all have their own value systems it is simply impossible to judge whether a law is just.（这段的问题好像并非因为人的价值观不同，而是不同立场的人会不同的接受相同的法律）

Moreover, even when it is sure that a law is unjust, it is not always appropriate to resist it. This is because that laws promulgated by a government operate as a whole, and if one of them is resisted, others will be affected--maybe not （be）able to run fluently（smoothly）--until they are adjusted. Things with（of） further destructiveness is that following this（指代有问题）, some people will try to find fault with other laws and resist them with the excuse that they are unjust too. All this will throw the society into chaos, and it is possible to harm people more than（more than前的比较对象是all this和后面的obeying the unjust law能否构成对比？考虑一下） obeying the unjust law.
这段论证不错

Here we can come to the conclusion that unless the government is severely corrupted and should be overthrown, citizens should obey all the laws, and if they do think the law is unjust they can discuss with the government. Otherwise, which is suggested in the claim that everyone should disobey and resist the unjust laws, the result can be that anyone would be able to（anyone is allowed to） resist any laws colliding（with） his own profits, and thus（不用and） be （it may lead to）the extermination of the civilized world.

观点不错。
注意论证过程要具体，事例、推理、分析都可以用。

再看看题目Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.
注意两个词：responsibility 和even more importantly。文中好像没有讲到responsibility的问题，也就是对于just law的看法。