ISSUE17,好像挺热的一道题，凑个热闹，法律just or unjust

maniacUID: 155886

"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 asserts that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. However, what is the yardstick to judge which law is just and which one is unjust? No one can give a credible answer. Therefore, this assertion is too arbitrary.

To begin with, common sense tells us that whether a law is just or unjust does not have unified standard to judge. For different people, there may be different opinions to the same law. It is just because different people have different views of value about our society. As a result, one law may be a very just one for this person, but in another person's eyes, it may be totally unjust. For example, in many countries, a person who has serious hereditary disease is not allowed to marry with others and two people who are close relatives are also forbidden to marry with each other. Most of the citizens think it is a just law, but the lovers who are deprived the rights of marriage will disagree with them. In facts, this law is only based on the hereditism angle, but overlooks human's rights of pursuing their happiness. If those kinds of people mentioned above promise that they will not have a baby in the future, their choice should be respect. Therefore, if we only change a respect to look upon the laws around us, one which seems just will turn to be unjust immediately.

Frankly speaking, law is just a tool to maintain the domination of the government. When it is established by legislature, it is destined to go against someone's interests. However, it still protects majority's interests, the people whose interests are broke are only minority, and their interests are often dirty and filthy which are bad for society. Imagining that the people whose interests are deprived by laws all claims the laws are unjust and all disobey these laws, the society will soon turn to be a chaos world. Consider, for instance, laws regulate that the action of robbing a bank is not permitted, but a few people believe that it is unjust and they should own the money in the bank. Does it mean that they can rob the bank without the consideration of the law? Emphatically, no. If they do that, what is waiting for them is the punishment according to the law. That is exactly the function of the law.

However, some governments or leaders draw up several unjust laws in order to accomplish their own political or economical profits. These laws are forced to execute just as other laws, but bring about totally contrary results. The good and just laws are usually beneficial to our society--punish the crime, protect property of people and society, and maintain the stability of the society, but the unjust law can only lead to disaster to our human beings. One can look no further than the Second World War, when many senior generals of Germany army accepted trials on the international court in The Hague; they tried to defend themselves by saying that they killed so many Jews just because as a citizen of their country they must obey its laws which draw up by Hitler and Nazi. Just killing people for obeying the laws, how ridiculous the statement is? This kind of laws is certainly should not obey.

To sum up, whether a law is just or unjust is difficult to identify, because it depend not only on one's own experience, but also on interests of different people. Most time we should obey most laws, but it also has exceptions sometimes.

gdhdannyUID: 125843

The speaker asserts that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. However, what is the yardstick to judge which law is just and which one is unjust? No one can give a credible answer. Therefore（个人感觉开头少用总结类的词汇，你想想刚说两三句话，能总结出什么来？）, this assertion is too arbitrary.

To begin with, common sense tells us that whether a law is just or unjust does not have unified standard to judge. For different people, there may be different opinions to the same law. （把前后两句合成一个符合句，意思更完整）It is just because different people have different views of value about our society. As a result, one law may be a very just one for this person, but（while） in another person's eyes, it may be totally unjust. For example, in many countries, a person who has serious hereditary disease is not allowed to marry with others and two people who are close relatives are also forbidden to marry with（marry及物） each other. Most of the citizens think it is a just law, but the lovers who are deprived the rights of marriage will disagree with them. In facts（fact）, this law is only based on the hereditism angle, but overlooks human's rights of pursuing their happiness. If those kinds of people mentioned above promise that they will not have a baby in the future, their choice should be respect（respected）. Therefore, if we only change a respect to look upon the laws around us, one which seems just will turn to be unjust immediately（有点突兀）.

Frankly speaking, law is just a tool to maintain the domination of the government. When it is established by legislature, it is destined to go against someone's interests. However, it still protects majority's interests, the people whose interests are broke（broken） are only minority, and their interests are often dirty and filthy（逗号） which are bad for society. Imagining（Imagine） that the people whose interests are deprived by laws all claims the laws are unjust and all disobey these laws, the society will soon turn to be a chaos world. Consider, for instance, laws regulate（不明白） that the action of robbing a bank is not permitted, but a few people believe that it is unjust and they should own the money in the bank. Does it mean that they can rob the bank without the consideration of the law? Emphatically, no. If they do that, what is waiting for them is the punishment according to the law. That is exactly the function of the law.
注意连词的使用。

However, some governments or leaders draw up several unjust laws in order to accomplish their own political or economical profits（accomplish profits?）. These laws are forced to execute just as other laws, but bring about totally contrary results. The good and just laws are usually beneficial to our society--punish the crime, protect property of people and society, and maintain the stability of the society, but the unjust law can only lead to disaster to our human beings. One can look no further than the Second World War, when many senior generals of Germany army accepted trials on the international court in The Hague; they tried to defend themselves by saying that they killed so many Jews just because as a citizen of their country they must obey its laws which draw up by Hitler and Nazi. Just killing people for obeying the laws, how ridiculous the statement is? This kind of laws is certainly should（is…should??!!） not obey.
例子举得很漂亮，这段写得非常不错

To sum up, whether a law is just or unjust is difficult to identify, because it depend not only on one's own experience, but also on interests of different people. Most time we should obey most（什么事most laws? Just? Unjust?） laws, but it also has exceptions sometimes.
论证的很完整，也比较有深度，多在语言上下点功夫。注意句子之间的逻辑关系和句群间的意思转换，有时候恰当的连词能为整个段落增色不少。另外建议使用同义词替换，像but，just这里用的就太多了。

maniacUID: 155886

"个人感觉开头少用总结类的词汇，你想想刚说两三句话，能总结出什么来？"
有道理，谨记在心
另外连词我也会多注意的