Issue17 第一篇，连写带改四个小时，欢迎大家拍砖

louchen1984UID: 172975

17.There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just law and,

even more important, to disobey and resist unjust law.
  
The Syllabus:

1. Put forward my opinion: Everyone should obey the laws, which are objective and compelling, thus are regardless of its

justice.
2. Laws must be complied with.
3. Its endangerment of disobeying laws.
4. It is hasty to define laws as just or unjust.
5. Conclusion.


The Text:
As the speaker alleges, everyone has the rights to disobey unjust laws besides the obligation to obey just laws. I cannot

agree with the allegation which not only violates the compelling force of laws but also has a potentially harmful impact.

The primary reason for my disagreement with the speaker is that laws are compellent regulations which ensure a society to

operate in an orderly manner, according to the laws' infrangibleness. Laws, established by authority, guaranteed by police

force, is meant to govern the behaviors of members of a country. Laws serves a session of functions, including protecting

private properties and lives to manage a relatively stable society, limiting the powers of the privileged to entitle each

citizen with equal freedom that would not otherwise be possible, eliminating class discriminations as well as ethic

prejudice, and so on. We are obliged to obey all the laws, regardless of its characters, in order to maintain an amicable

society in which every individual's rights are treasured and respected.

Another reason why I oppose the speaker's position is that justifying a violation of laws which we regard as unjust will

result in illegal conducts, even egregious criminals, then it will probably break up the balance of the legal system and

bring the society into a perishing chaos state. The endangerment of disobeying a sort of unjust law according to personal

judgment is undisputable. Take tax evasion for example, had those who consider the income taxation laws as unjust refused to

pay the amount, the government will be short of funds to run properly, leading to the country's education, arts and people's

welfare being terribly impaired. Also imagine a victim, who is unsatisfied with the punishment sentenced by the criminal

laws, thus takes revenge at the criminal and kills him. Such behaviors will make the laws meaningless and peoples' interests

and lives exposed in an insecure status. In short, disobeying unjust laws is by no means justifiable especially when others'

legitimate rights or safety are threatened.

Another fundamental flaw with the speaker's point of view is that his judgment of the fairness of a law is hasty and

unsophisticated. People's different education background, domestic environment and religious beliefs shape their different

personal value systems, which makes it not a straightforward issue to determine whether a law is just or unjust. A most

controversial case in point is perhaps euthanasia, an act of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal

illness or an incurable conditions, usually by lethal injection. Most countries interdict this practice illegal, taking into

consideration its inhumanity to deprive a person's right to survive without his nod. By contrast, a respectable number of

people argue that leave the patient in endless unconsciousness or affliction is another kind of agony. What is more, people

tend to regard laws as unjust which are likely to impair their own interests, without a concern for others or the whole

society. Laws are to resolve interest conflicts peacefully, ensuring each individual's interest together with the benefits

of the society to reach a balance. In conclusion, laws are objective while the justice of laws is subjective, which makes

laws indispensable to adjusting peoples' conduct.

Admittedly, laws are sometimes established that people later recognized as being unjust. In a democratic society, laws

should keep abreast of the advancement and innovations of the society, but through lawful means instead of disobeying or

resistance. Otherwise the effectiveness and authority of the laws will be abused.

Taking all these factors into account, we may safely arrive at the conclusion that laws are set up to protect individual

rights and strike a balance of an orderly society. Accordingly, disobedience or resistance is by no means allowed merely by

one's subjective judgment.

louchen1984UID: 172975

我惊！为什么会变成这种格式的！

louchen1984UID: 172975

重新再贴！我是从记事本贴过来的，有谁能告诉我为什么会这样吗？一步步调整好累哦， 多谢
17.There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just law and, even more important, to disobey and resist unjust law.
  
The Syllabus:

1. Put forward my opinion: Everyone should obey the laws, which are objective and compelling, thus are regardless of its justice.
2. Laws must be complied with.
3. Its endangerment of disobeying laws.
4. It is hasty to define laws as just or unjust.
5. Conclusion.


The Text:
As the speaker alleges, everyone has the rights to disobey unjust laws besides the obligation to obey just laws. I cannot agree with the allegation which not only violates the compelling force of laws but also has a potentially harmful impact.

The primary reason for my disagreement with the speaker is that laws are compellent regulations which ensure a society to operate in an orderly manner, according to the laws' infrangibleness. Laws,established by authority, guaranteed by police force, is meant to govern the behaviors of members of a country. Laws serves a session of functions, including protecting private properties and lives to manage a relatively stable society, limiting the powers of the privileged to entitle each citizen with equal freedom that would not otherwise be possible, eliminating class discriminations as well as ethic prejudice, and so on. We are obliged to obey all the laws, regardless of its characters, in order to maintain an amicable society in which every individual's rights are treasured and respected.

Another reason why I oppose the speaker's position is that justifying a violation of laws which we regard as unjust will result in illegal conducts, even egregious criminals, then it will probably break up the balance of the legal system and bring the society into a perishing chaos state. The endangerment of disobeying a sort of unjust law according to personal judgment is undisputable. Take tax evasion for example, had those who consider the income taxation laws as unjust refused to pay the amount, the government will be short of funds to run properly, leading to the country's education, arts and people's welfare being terribly impaired. Also imagine a victim, who is unsatisfied with the punishment sentenced by the criminal laws, thus takes revenge at the criminal and kills him. Such behaviors will make the laws meaningless and peoples' interests and lives exposed in an insecure status. In short, disobeying unjust laws is by no means justifiable especially when others' legitimate rights or safety are threatened.

Another fundamental flaw with the speaker's point of view is that his judgment of the fairness of a law is hasty and unsophisticated. People's different education background, domestic environment and religious beliefs shape their different personal value systems, which makes it not a straightforward issue to determine whether a law is just or unjust. A most controversial case in point is perhaps euthanasia, an act of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable conditions, usually by lethal injection. Most countries interdict this practice illegal, taking into consideration its inhumanity to deprive a person's right to survive without his nod. By contrast, a respectable number of people argue that leave the patient in endless unconsciousness or affliction is another kind of agony. What is more, people
tend to regard laws as unjust which are likely to impair their own interests, without a concern for others or the whole society. Laws are to resolve interest conflicts peacefully, ensuring each individual's interest together with the benefits

of the society to reach a balance. In conclusion, laws are objective while the justice of laws is subjective, which makes laws indispensable to adjusting peoples' conduct.

Admittedly, laws are sometimes established that people later recognized as being unjust. In a democratic society, laws should keep abreast of the advancement and innovations of the society, but through lawful means instead of disobeying or resistance. Otherwise the effectiveness and authority of the laws will be abused.

Taking all these factors into account, we may safely arrive at the conclusion that laws are set up to protect individual rights and strike a balance of an orderly society. Accordingly, disobedience or resistance is by no means allowed merely by one's subjective judgment.

littlegoldUID: 174599

总的来说这是篇不错的文章，思路清晰，例证恰当，句式也比较多样。注意关键用词的准确性，部分修改如下，供参考。

The primary reason for my disagreement with the speaker is that laws are compellent regulations（compellent一词虽有强制的意思，但个人认为似乎更多地是用在形容具有无法抗拒的吸引力，因此换用"mandatory"是否更妥？） which ensure a society to operate in an orderly manner, according to the laws' infrangibleness. Laws,established by authority, guaranteed by police force, is meant to govern the behaviors of members of a country. Laws serves a session of functions（"session"一般是指"a series of meetings"或者"a period of time"，这里直接用"a number of functions"也挺顺的。）, including protecting private properties and lives to manage a relatively stable society, limiting the powers of the privileged to entitle each citizen with equal freedom that would not otherwise be possible, eliminating class discriminations as well as ethic prejudice, and so on. We are obliged to obey all the laws, regardless of its characters（这里的character怎么解释呢？换成“content”如何呢？或者索性说“obey all types of laws”吧）, in order to maintain an amicable society in which every individual's rights are treasured and respected.

Another reason why I oppose the speaker's position is that justifying a violation of laws which we regard as unjust will result in illegal conducts, even egregious criminals, then it will probably break up the balance of the legal system and bring the society into a perishing chaos state("chaos"是名词，直接说“perishing/fatal chaos”或者“chaotic state”). The endangerment(换成“danger”) of disobeying a sort of unjust law according to personal judgment is undisputable. Take tax evasion for example, had those who consider the income taxation laws as unjust refused to pay the amount, the government will be short of funds to run properly, leading to the country's education, arts and people's welfare being terribly impaired](这个例子举得不错！). Also imagine a victim, who is unsatisfied with the punishment sentenced by the criminal laws, thus takes revenge at the criminal and kills him. Such behaviors will make the laws meaningless and peoples' interests and lives exposed in an insecure status. In short, disobeying unjust laws is by no means justifiable especially when others' legitimate rights or safety are threatened.

Another fundamental flaw with the speaker's point of view is that his judgment of the fairness of a law is hasty and unsophisticated. People's different education background, domestic environment and religious beliefs shape their different personal value systems, which makes it not a straightforward issue（直接用“not easy”或"difficult"代替吧） to determine whether a law is just or unjust. A most controversial case in point is perhaps euthanasia, an act of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable conditions, usually by lethal injection. Most countries interdict this practice illegal, taking into consideration its inhumanity to deprive a person's right to survive without his nod. By contrast, a respectable number of people argue that leave（"leaving"或者“to leave”） the patient in endless unconsciousness or affliction is another kind of agony. 。。。

littlegoldUID: 174599

还有，关于粘贴格式的问题。应该在写字板或记事本的“格式”菜单里将“自动换行”前的勾去掉，再粘贴就没问题了

louchen1984UID: 172975

非常感谢littlegold! 太感谢了
唉我就是词汇量少，只好借助金山词霸虽然明知道它很烂，果然是不行的。关于which makes it not a straightforward issue（直接用“not easy”或"difficult"代替吧）我觉得用原词挺好的呀想听听你的意见。
看了看你的发贴时间，顿时汗颜～～～我还在家里天天睡懒觉呢

dotmanUID: 193231

问题是在场上，你能写这么多吗》
从今天起，我只写45分钟的作文。

dotmanUID: 193231

保留你45 分中的作文，在保留你修改后的作文。
再比较。你知道你为什么写不出来了。
我是这么想的，打算这么做。

louchen1984UID: 172975

唉 前途坎坷啊