issue17

htpengUID: 2115584

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 makes a dual claim: in the first prong, he divides laws into two types----just and unjust. In the second prong, he tries to persuade people to obey just laws and resist unjust laws. While I completely agree with the first prong, I think the second one has some logic flaws.

Admittedly, a perfect law that can solve all the social problem doesn't exist, at least doesn't exist nowadays. Laws are established to maintain the social system in which everybody lives. When regulating the society, it prove the right of some people but also indispensably affront other people. This phenomena occur because that these laws are constituted to prove right of only part of people.  Few laws can stand for the right of all the people, so unjust laws always exist. May be the existence of unjust laws can be proved by the behavior that America has adjusted her constitution for many times. It is known other country also do this.

However, when the speaker advises we to obey the just laws but refuse to those unjust laws, I think the speaker has neglected some fundamental principles. Firstly, as mentioned above, laws are constituted to sustain the normal run of social system. If individuals don't obey the laws, no matter they are just or not, the society will surely get into chaos. This can be demonstrated by a assumption: If some people resist the laws without punish, laws will forfeit their authority and nobody will obey them. Just imagining a world that everybody can be robber, thief, cheater and rapist without punish is terrible.

Secondly, though we admit the existence of unjust laws, how to define them is a difficult work. In the second paragraph I mentioned that few laws can prove the right and benefit of all the people. So people in different positions evaluate laws from different perspectives. Individuals naturally think put their own benefits and rights are prior to others. That means in some circumstances, some people think some laws are just but others hold a contrary opinion. In this case, should those who regard the laws just obey them but others not? A conflict is inevitable.

Beyond the speaker’s suggestion a more feasible solution is that legislature should modify the laws as they did once. For these thousands of years, legalist says that laws have improved greatly. For the reason that nowadays people enjoy more freedom and more right than our ancestor did thousands of years ago, I believe our offspring can enjoy more than we could.

In the final analysis, I iterate my view that I agree with the speaker insofar as laws can be divided into unjust and just, but I think the speaker’s way to solve this problem is totally wrong and may get the society into chaos. A better solution that relies in the legislature is brought forward.

[ Last edited by htpeng on 2005-7-13 at 23:19 ]

songwei1765UID: 202658

注意发贴格式，偶代斑竹说一下~~

htpengUID: 2115584

改过了,谢谢

禾日因心UID: 174510

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.



The speaker makes a dual claim: in the first prong, he divides laws into two types----just and unjust. In the second prong, he tries to persuade people to obey just laws and resist unjust laws. While I completely agree with the first prong, I think the second one has some logic flaws.这句表述像写A的

Admittedly, a perfect law that can solve all the social problem doesn't exist, at least doesn't exist nowadays. Laws are established to maintain the social system in which everybody lives有些重复. When regulating the society, it prove the right of some people but also indispensably affront other people（可否改成inevitably impinges other's rights). This phenomena occurs because that these laws are constituted to prove right of only part of people. 这句和上句重复着说了 Few laws can stand for the right of all the people, so unjust laws always exist. May be the existence of unjust laws can be proved by the behavior that America has adjusted her constitution for many times. It is known that other country also do this.

However, when the speaker advises us to obey the just laws but to  refuse  those unjust laws, I think the speaker has neglected some fundamental principles. Firstly, as mentioned above, laws are constituted to sustain the normal run of social system. If individuals don't obey the laws, no matter whether they are just or not, the society will surely get into chaos. This can be demonstrated by a assumption: If some people resist the laws without punishment, laws would forfeit their authority and nobody would obey them. Just imagining a world that everybody would be a robber,a  thief,a  cheater and a rapist,without punishment,it would be  terrible. 语法上要注意下，要避免写fragment

Secondly, though we admit the existence of unjust laws, how to define them is a difficult job.work 不可数的 In the second paragraph I mentioned that few laws can prove the right and benefit of all the people.（可否改成 few laws can bring benefit to all the people,prove 这个词可以这样用吗，楼主可告知吗)So people in different positions evaluate laws from different perspectives. Individuals naturally think put their own benefits and rights are prior to others.这句语法错的厉害，没明白什么意思 That means in some circumstances, some people think some laws are just but others hold a contrary opinion. In this case, should those who regard the laws just obey them but others not? A conflict is inevitable. 感觉这段语言上饶圈子，没有深入下去，最好能进一不分析出resist the unjust law 引起哪些社会问题

Beyond the speaker’s suggestion a more feasible solution is that legislature should modify the laws as they did once.提出了解决的办法是立法机关修改法律，这里就要稍微深入下去些 For these thousands of years, legalist says that laws have been improved greatly. For the reason that nowadays people enjoy more freedom and more right than our ancestor did thousands of years ago, I believe our offspring can enjoy more than we could.

In the final analysis, I iterate my view that I agree with the speaker insofar as laws can be divided into unjust and just, but I think the speaker’s way to solve this problem is totally wrong and may get the society into chaos. A better solution that relies in the legislature is brought forward.

htpengUID: 2115584

本来是想第三段写法律权威
第四段写公正与不公正法律的区分的
结果写出来的很没条理
还有N条语法错误,回去再修改一下

谢谢禾田!

禾日因心UID: 174510

不客气，你和小仪的速度都好快呀，要向你们学习了

abigredUID: 154473

The speaker makes a dual claim: in the first prong, he divides laws into two types----just and unjust. In the second prong, he tries to persuade people to obey just laws and resist unjust laws. While I completely agree with the first prong, I think the second one has some logic flaws.

Admittedly, a perfect law that can solve all the social problem doesn't exist, at least doesn't exist nowadays. Laws are established to maintain the social system in which everybody lives. When regulating the society, it prove（s） the right of some people but also indispensably affront other people. This phenomena 加个might可能客观点occur because that these laws are constituted to prove right of only part of people.  Few laws can stand for the right of all the people, so unjust laws always exist. May be连写 the existence of unjust laws can be proved by the behavior that America has adjusted her constitution for many times. It is known that other country also do this. 解释一下just and unjust是根据什么来评价的？ 是根据是否符合某些人的利益吗？或者说法律本来就没有所有的公正非公正之分，只是统治阶级的意志表现？呵呵，这只是我在想这个题目的时候的想法

However, when the speaker advises we us to obey the just laws but refuse to those unjust laws, I think the speaker has neglected some fundamental principles. Firstly, as mentioned above, laws are constituted to sustain the normal run of social system. If individuals don't obey the laws, no matter they are just or not, the society will surely get into chaos. This can be demonstrated by a assumption: If some people resist the laws without punish being punished, laws will forfeit their authority and nobody will obey them. Just imagining a world that everybody can be robber, thief, cheater and rapist without punish is terrible. 为了加点语言色彩，建议用感叹句,how terrible it would be...

Secondly, though we admit the existence of unjust laws, how to define them is a difficult work. In the second paragraph I mentioned that few laws can prove the right and benefit of all the people. So people in different positions evaluate laws from different perspectives. Individuals naturally think put their own benefits and rights are prior to others.语病 That means in some circumstances, some people think some laws are just but others hold a contrary opinion. In this case, should those who regard the laws just obey them but others not? A conflict is inevitable. （这段是不是该放到第二段后面或者前面呢？而且这个跟你说同意作者第一个观点有点相左）

Beyond the speaker’s suggestion a more feasible solution is that legislature should modify the laws as they did once. For these thousands of years, legalist says that laws have improved greatly. For the reason that nowadays people enjoy more freedom and more right than our ancestor did thousands of years ago, I believe（不要用这个主观的词） our offspring can enjoy more than we could.（上面有提到美国修改宪法的例子，跟这个是不是也相关？if so,放在一起应该更好）In the final analysis, I iterate my view that I agree with the speaker insofar as laws can be divided into unjust and just, but I think the speaker’s way to solve this problem is totally wrong and may get the society into chaos. A better solution that relies in the legislature is brought forward.

呵呵，肆水好像都在挑dual claims 在写吧，已经形成自己模板了，从一些词语上就可以看到
组织结构上能改善一下

htpengUID: 2115584

我的本意是第二段论证不公正法的存在
第三段写违背法律的后果
第四段则是写对不公正法理解的歧义所产生的悖论
如果在段末加上一句withot any other better choices,to obey the laws completely is the most proper solution.可能会好一点

汗...我不是挑dual claim写....而是凡是看到题目有两个句子的都想往这上靠,落下病根了....