Issue178 今日说“法”+ 正反方面精彩意见超火爆！

DendisUID: 158017

Issue 178
------题目------
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.
------正文------
Ever since the Code of Hammurapi comes into being, laws have begun to put restrictions on people's behaviors and have played an important role in the maintenance of social order. But aside from its impact on shaping public deportment, legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts.

Our collective life experience is that we make choices and decisions every day--under a legal system. No one is ever granted the rights to surpass the boundary of laws; otherwise there may be lack of protection for private property and personal right from being violated. Common sense tells us that the laws will punish the wrongdoers severely sometimes so harshly even to sentence the felons to death. It is the awe to controlling authority as well as the fear of castigation that made most of the people away from the illicit behaviors. Laws, for better or worse, have put up a paradigm on which people abide by, for the sake of personal interests and the social stability as well.

Laws can exert their influences on people’s “hands and legs”, but when it comes to man’s hearts and minds, it cannot. In the long history of its development, laws change over time and vary from region to region not to alter human nature but to be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times and places. The end of a legal system impels laws to evolve to keep pace with changing mores, customers, and our collective sense of equity but with little concern for the reconstruction of human thoughts. Bigamy, to be commonly regarded as illegal in most countries, is yet legitimate in some Arabian countries. For Islamic, outlawing bigamy seems an impinge upon their religious freedom of choosing mates. Instead of bringing about a revolution in the conception of marriage among Islamic disciples, laws give way to the entrenched customers.

Still more, from the psychotic analysis angle, that laws will change nature is further doubted. Sigmund Freud has divided the individual personality into threefold: the id, the ego and the super ego. The ego, as the surface of the nature and the part you show the world, is governed by the "reality principle," otherwise known as laws. However, so powerless are laws to extend its impacts on the id and the superego remains below, each has its own significant effects on the personality. A rapist, for example, despite years of imprisonment may still relapse into outrages in that laws fail to civilize the id desires composing of instinctual drives. By no means can laws alone alter our nature. Were laws by itself be able to cause a change in the human nature and exercise a fundamental influence on people's hearts and minds, then it would probably be no need for its existence. People at no time can ever have imagined this. In fact, to truly change the human nature, it is through the synergic efforts associating the education, moral and ethic social interactions altogether that brought about a reconstruction of human nature.

In conclusion, in spite the fact that we may live in a harmonious society with the implementation of the laws, it seems unthinkable for laws to undertake the role as a reformer in rebuilding man's nature as well as hearts and minds.

needleUID: 158900

always taking seat~~~~lalala:)

居然忘了“阅”了，ft

lakeqianUID: 157560

Dendis 文章好
Needle改的好（盼望中）
俺小辈只有占座旁听的份
hoho~~

zhangbaokeUID: 158124

哈，拿个凳子，占坐，改加欣赏！！

DendisUID: 158017

最初由 lakeqian 发布
[B]Dendis 文章好
Needle改的好（盼望中）
俺小辈只有占座旁听的份
hoho~~ [/B]

我也是新人，大家互相学习啊！
尤其谢谢needle，改得真的是很认真啊，水平又高，能够得到她的点拨，也是三生有幸啊！
把提纲一起贴出，大家共同探讨。

B1：法律可以限制人们的行为，维护社会的稳定，但这是由于人们对于强力权威的敬畏和对于惩罚的害怕所致。
B2：从历史发展进程我们发现，法律并不能够改变人们的本性和心灵，它只是一定社会、时代、文明下的产物。
B3：从三我说着手分析法律对于人类本性影响的本质，即其只能制约社会规则下的自我，却无法改变本能欲望下的本我。所以自然也无法改变本能欲望下的人类本性和心灵。

zhangbaokeUID: 158124

Ever since the Code of Hammurapi comes into being, laws have begun to put restrictions on people's behaviors and have played an important role in the maintenance of social order. But aside from its impact on shaping public deportment, legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts.（Ever since＋ but aside from的开头很精炼）（开头让人羡慕得～～～～p）


Our collective life experience is that we make choices and decisions（个人感觉choice和decision不是behavior范围，是这之前心理状态，我看不如土一点behavior under the law，） every day--under a legal system. No one is ever granted the rights to surpass the boundary of laws; otherwise there may be lack of protection for private property and personal right from being violated(from being violated可去掉). Common sense tells us that the laws will punish the wrongdoers severely sometimes so harshly（sometimes so harshly作插入语或去掉并在severely前加so，不太肯定） even to sentence the felons to death. It is the awe to controlling authority as well as the fear of castigation that made most of the people away from the illicit behaviors. Laws, for better or worse, have put up a paradigm on（on是否多余） which people abide by, for the sake of personal interests and the social stability as well.（第一body段总law和人关系，可是，对题目的limits behavior并不能legislate moral————heart，mind没作出强调，不知合不合老美胃口，～～）


Laws can exert their influences on people’s “hands and legs”, but when it comes to man’s hearts and minds, it cannot. In the long history of its development, laws change over time and vary from region to region not to alter human nature （加个逗号清楚些）but to be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times and places. The end of a legal system impels laws to evolve to keep pace with changing mores, customers, and our collective sense of equity but with little concern for the reconstruction of human thoughts. Bigamy（强悍，这个都知道，为什么不polygamy细，嘻～～）, to be commonly regarded as illegal in most countries, is yet legitimate in some Arabian countries. For Islamic, outlawing（这个用法太经典一点，sigh） bigamy seems an impinge upon their religious freedom of choosing mates. Instead of bringing about a revolution in the conception of marriage among Islamic disciples, laws give way to the entrenched customers.（这一段论述的很经典，by the way，你为什么不爱用逻辑词汇？？）


Still more, from the psychotic analysis angle,（from ～～～angle） that laws will change nature is further doubted. Sigmund Freud（谢谢，是不是弗洛伊德？？） has divided the individual personality into threefold: the id, the ego and the super ego. The ego, as the surface of the nature and the part you show the world, is governed by the "reality principle," otherwise known as laws. However, （这个句的语法成分我还没搞清，能这样倒装吗？）so powerless are laws to extend its impacts on the id and the superego remains below, each has its own significant effects on the personality. A rapist, for example, despite years of imprisonment may still relapse into outrages in that laws fail to civilize the id desires composing of instinctual drives. By no means can laws alone alter our nature. Were laws by itself be able to cause a change in the human nature and exercise a fundamental influence on people's hearts and minds, then it would probably be no need for its existence. People at no time can ever have imagined this. In fact, to truly change the human nature, it is through(through可不要吧，要不然是什么brought？？) the synergic efforts associating the education, moral and ethic social interactions altogether that brought about a reconstruction of human nature.

In conclusion, in spite the fact that we may live in a harmonious society with the implementation of the laws, it seems unthinkable for laws to undertake the role as a reformer in rebuilding man's nature as well as hearts and minds.

（开头结尾都很爽，扣题也相当准，论述，个人觉得body1 稍有问题，其他无可挑剔～～，
Anyway， 我目前看到的最爽的文章，不用什么logic词汇就写得这么流畅， 研究一下）


也想问一下，为什么你能写得不模板化，积累？？？

zhangbaokeUID: 158124

还想请高手指点一下，
我得开头结尾我个人觉得很不爽


https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=208697

imongUID: 140258

好像新时代的galaxysong又要诞生了

我今天元气大耗几天之内都估计看不成作文
要是评精华什么的直接pm我就行了~~~~~~

DendisUID: 158017

谢谢zhangbaoke的认真修改，B1实际上是想对题目threshold的回应，即法律能够制约人们的行为，同时提出造成这一现象的原因。我是希望从法律运作机理来看待法律和人之间的关系，也借此透视出法律根本无法涉及人物的内心世界。不知道这样的论据是否可以？大家讨论一下，多多批评。

最初由 imong 发布
[B]好像新时代的galaxysong又要诞生了

我今天元气大耗几天之内都估计看不成作文
要是评精华什么的直接pm我就行了~~~~~~ [/B]

imong过奖了，作为新人我只是希望在前辈的不断指导下和同辈的帮助下共同进步，水平离各位牛人还差很远，bow一个！

Ps：imong身体保重啊，你可是我们大家的opinion leader啊！

needleUID: 158900

Issue 178
------题目------
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.

B1：法律可以限制人们的行为，维护社会的稳定，但这是由于人们对于强力权威的敬畏和对于惩罚的害怕所致。
B2：从历史发展进程我们发现，法律并不能够改变人们的本性和心灵，它只是一定社会、时代、文明下的产物。[怎么感觉body2应当放在body1的位置上]
B3：从三我说着手分析法律对于人类本性影响的本质，即其只能制约社会规则下的自我，却无法改变本能欲望下的本我。所以自然也无法改变本能欲望下的人类本性和心灵。[果然，body1和body3之间将衔接的比较好][本我、自我的概念要在issue这么短的篇幅内说清楚有点困难，好奇ing]

[首先要说明的是我没有写过法律类的文章，我对法律也一窍不通。如果下面看你的文章的时候提出荒谬的问题或者意见，不要见笑。]

------正文------
Ever since the Code of Hammurapi comes into being[开头起得很好，555，我不会拼写汉莫拉比，羡慕ing], laws have begun to put restrictions on people's behaviors and have played an important role in the maintenance of social order. But aside from its impact on shaping public deportment, legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts.[1+1式的题目，采取的立场是完全同意原题，前后两个论断都同意。个人认为，这个绝对立场里面有弱点，继续看ing]

Our collective life experience is that we make choices and decisions every day--under a legal system. No one is ever granted the rights to surpass the boundary of laws; otherwise [分号+otherwise，很舒服的行文] there may be lack of protection for private property and personal right from being violated. Common sense tells us that the laws will punish the wrongdoers severely [这里似乎应当有个逗号] sometimes so harshly even to sentence the felons to death. It is the awe to controlling authority as well as the fear of castigation that made most of the people away from the illicit behaviors[TS句？]. Laws, for better or worse, have put up a paradigm on which [???] people abide by, for the sake of personal interests and the social stability as well.[感觉你这一段的论证还是很自然的，但是中心句出现的太晚。表示观点的句子提前一点比较好，可以和总结句首尾呼应。中心句是顺承着出现的，awe/fear顺承上句中的punish，但如果调换论证顺序，用punish来呼应awe/fear也是很好的。而且，开章明义，对于议论文还是非常重要的。]

[和上段缺衔接] Laws can exert their influences on people’s “hands and legs”, but when it comes to man’s hearts and minds, it [they] cannot[嗯，观点很鲜明]. In the long history of its [their，注意是laws] development, laws change over time and vary from region to region [加个逗号] not to alter[change/vary/alter，不重复用词，很好] human nature but to be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times and places. The end of a legal system impels laws to evolve to keep pace with changing mores, customers, and our collective sense of equity but with little concern for the reconstruction of human thoughts. Bigamy, to be commonly regarded as illegal in most countries, is yet legitimate in some Arabian countries. For Islamic, outlawing bigamy seems an impinge[这是个动词] upon their religious freedom of choosing mates[这句的意思怎么感觉跟上一句是相反的？]. Instead of bringing about a revolution in the conception of marriage among Islamic disciples, laws give way to the entrenched customers[简短的例子，简短的分析，但很到位。我个人认为这个例子也同时可以说明region的问题，可以在分析中加上，会加强你的论点].[你分析了laws适应性的很多方面，但只举出了一个例子，显得有点单薄。这是一个横向的例子，建议再举一个纵向的，时间上的。] [这一段虽然开头句总结了上一个body，但正如在提纲中指出的，这是一个总括性的段落，插在body1\3之间有些不太合适。另外的问题是，这一段和原题中的behavior/hearts & minds似乎没有关系。作为论证过程，我提出了以上增加例子的建议，但从文章整体考虑，这一个body作为外围段，应当简写。并且，要加强和behavio/hearts & minds的联系]

Still more, from the psychotic analysis angle, that laws will change nature is further doubted[之前没有被doubted，现在哪里来的further]. Sigmund Freud has divided the individual personality into threefold: the id, the ego and the super ego. The ego, as the surface of the nature[印象里nature是不加定冠词的] and the part you show the world, is governed by the "reality principle,"[标点的位置都用得很正确，看来真的是很下功夫很注意细节啊！赞一个] otherwise known as laws[laws是reality principle的概念外延吗？]. However, so powerless are laws to extend its[their] impacts on the id[what is it? U haven’t explained yet so u cannot use it here] and the superego [the same question as before here] remains below[and这里引导的是并列句？还是remains是remaining之误？另外，remains below在这里应当如何理解？], each [of which] has its own significant effects on the personality[在提纲中我担心的问题出现了。限于篇幅，对于本我、自我的解释都不清晰。]. A rapist, for example, despite years of imprisonment may still relapse into outrages in that laws fail to civilize the id desires composing of instinctual drives[这个例子太牵强了。论点中的弱点在这里清晰的表露了，May本身就只是一种可能，rapist是否一定会再犯？甚至就算他不再犯，你如何证明他是因为惧怕法律威严而不是真心从善呢？你无法证明。]. By no means can laws alone alter our nature. Were laws by itself be [前面有were了] able to cause a change in the human nature and exercise a fundamental influence on people's hearts and minds[这半句有点罗嗦，其实就是重复by no means的那句话], then [去掉then，were本身就是if were的省略，有连词if了] it would probably be no need for its existence[嗯？这似乎是一个论点的样子]. People at no time can ever have imagined this[晕，没证明。为什么不能alone?从by no means开始就重复的下论断，没给出一点论证。不好。]. In fact, to truly change the human nature, it is through the synergic efforts associating the education, moral and ethic social interactions altogether that brought about a reconstruction of human nature[还是一个论断，补充了上面的一个。不过仍然没有证明。这些能够影响minds & hearts的因素，应当给与一定地位说明之，从而证明laws单独真的不行。][更重要的问题在这里，你是完全同意原题的立场，你从一开始的legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts，就完全否定了laws的作用，这里忽然说出alone、associating，这不是自相矛盾吗？绝对立场的问题一览无余了！].

In conclusion, in spite the fact that we may live in a harmonious society with the implementation of the laws, it seems unthinkable for laws to undertake the role as a reformer in rebuilding [你文中论证的，也似乎不是完全重建] man's nature as well as hearts and minds.

[这道题目选择绝对立场我是反对的。Laws对于人类思想的影响其实在现实中很显而易见，一项推广多年的法律，将使人们对一些善恶标准习以为常，并代代延续。而绝对反对，是很难做到论证而没有漏洞的。

注意题目中用的reform/change两个词，这是绝对有程度差异的。其实也是一个提示，可以选择立场反对reform，但让步承认change。

文章的结构如我在提纲和文中所言，建议作适当的调整。Body1和body3将是非常好的连接，分述behavior/minds两个方面laws的影响。Body2作为外围部分，解释laws的背景知识，应当放在首段。在描写过程中，应当加强和题目的联系。

文章的语言仍旧是学习的对象。

另外，下次贴作文的时候，提纲一起贴比较好的说:)]

apolloxpUID: 156355

最初由 imong 发布
[B]好像新时代的galaxysong又要诞生了
[/B]

同感同感
不水了。研究一下文章先

imongUID: 140258

Ever since the Code of Hammurapi comes（came） into being, laws have begun to put restrictions on people's behaviors and have played an important role in the maintenance of social order. But aside from its impact on shaping public deportment, legislation is of no avail to reform human nature as well as mankind thoughts.

Our collective life experience is that we make choices and decisions every day--under a legal system. No one is ever granted the rights to surpass the boundary of laws; otherwise there may be lack of protection for private property and personal right from being violated.（前后对应不一致） Common sense tells us that the laws will punish the wrongdoers severely （逗号）sometimes so harshly even to sentence the felons to death. It is the awe to controlling（去掉controlling） authority as well as the fear of castigation that made(（动词表达不到位） most of the people away from the illicit behaviors. Laws, for better or worse, have put up a paradigm on which people abide by, for the sake of personal interests and the social stability as well.

Laws can exert their influences on people’s “hands and legs”, but when it comes to man’s hearts and minds, it cannot. In the long history of its development, laws change over time and vary from region to region not to alter human nature but to be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times and places. The end of a legal system impels laws to evolve to keep pace with changing mores, customers,（customes -_-| 太不应该） and our collective sense of equity but with little concern for the reconstruction of human thoughts. Bigamy, to be commonly regarded as illegal in most countries, is yet legitimate in some Arabian countries. For Islamic, outlawing bigamy seems an impinge upon their religious freedom of choosing mates. Instead of bringing about a revolution in the conception of marriage among Islamic disciples, laws give way to the entrenched customers.（还是顾客？）

Still more, from the psychotic analysis angle, that laws will change nature is further doubted. Sigmund Freud has divided the individual personality into threefold: the id, the ego and the super ego. The ego, as the surface of the nature and the part you show the world, is governed by the "reality principle," otherwise known as laws. However, so powerless are laws to extend its impacts on the id and the superego remains below, each has its own significant effects on the personality. A rapist, for example, despite years of imprisonment may still relapse into outrages in that laws fail to civilize the id desires composing of instinctual drives. By no means can laws alone alter our nature. Were laws by itself be able to cause a change in the human nature and exercise a fundamental influence on people's hearts and minds, then it would probably be no need for its existence.（少有的漂亮论证） People at no time can ever have imagined this. In fact, to truly change the human nature, it is through the synergic efforts associating the education, moral and ethic social interactions altogether that brought about a reconstruction of human nature.

In conclusion, in spite the fact that we may live in a harmonious society with the implementation of the laws, it seems unthinkable for laws to undertake the role as a reformer in rebuilding man's nature as well as hearts and minds.

（你的立论其实在于law cannot reforms thoughts, it is thoughts that reform laws, 在b2可以再加强和突出一下呢...好文章。尤其是b3.）

needleUID: 158900

哦？没想到和imong观点相差这么大:confused:

再探讨

精华了？呵呵，也好，多点人看，多点人讨论。

needleUID: 158900

另外，刚才吃饭的时候又想到的一点：dendis的body1中论证的人们对于laws的畏惧感，难道不是laws对minds/hearts的影响之一吗？畏惧感难道不属于minds/hearts吗？

我还是很想强调reform/change的区别，建议慎重对待题目中的每一个用词，慎重选择支持or反对的立场以及对象。

这篇贴子，我个人意见，论证的不好。

imongUID: 140258

影响= reform？
影响=change？