issu17 taotaoQ作业(COFFEE小组)

Cappuccino☆UID: 2155660

1.开头像argument......是不是总结了argument的后遗症:D
2.语言比上一篇有很大的进步,但写长句子是要注意语法问题
3.第四段那个"violate"是违反的意思......用在这里有点郁闷;P
4.issue最重要的是观点要明确,支持和反对,自己的看法,感觉这篇文章有点泛泛而谈,
没有一个固定的观点和逻辑

呵呵~~总的来说,语言和论证上都比上一篇进步多了~~恭喜！

taotaoQUID: 2105710

谢谢ＣＣ，现在还挣扎在argu１４０上
午饭还没吃，好饿，干饱了回来再整！

hunsonUID: 2147580

Sorry, i have no time to  be detail
topic sentences:
examples:
fine clauses:
some viewpoints
According to this statement, the laws are classified  two types, one is just and the other is unjust. The speaker also asserts that people should resist unjust laws more than obey just laws. In my view this assertion is unreasonable for the reason that laws can not categorize in this angle. And I strongly do not agree with making against with unjust laws what the speaker suggests.
[poits out author's standpoint, disagree to trancend unjust beyon law]
A democratic society the state represents the general will of the citizens, and that in obeying its laws each citizen is pursuing his own real interests, Rousseau said. Therefore, the laws are on the behalf of the people in the society. By obeying the laws the individuals are pursuing their own interests. Although there are a few of citizens oppose it, because their present benefits, most of what are caused by different individual value system and different personal interest, religious belief are not protected under the laws. Consider[expurgating "consider" may be better], for example, a law that regulates abortion is legal. Individuals with particular religious beliefs regard such law as unfairness, while individuals with different value systems may tend to regard it as fairness. Hence, a law is just or unjust is more subjective issue than that can be simply judged through objective criterion. Just like 100 Hamlet in 100 individuals’ eyes. Moreover, the significance of paying attention on the reasonable of laws outweighs the fairness or unfairness of it.
[law's intrinsic meaning and it's limitation]
In addition, the principle of formulating and carrying out the laws are stabilizing the public pace and order, promoting the prosperity of economic and maintaining the benefits of all human being. Set an assumption that, individuals only obey the laws which they view as just, revolt against the laws which they think unjust in the society. People behave under their own personal value system and own judgment standards. What is the serious consequence will come about? Obviously, the state is no longer a paradise for people to live and work. Even more, it is impossible to guarantee the basic human rights and keep the fundamental society order, and it is the under-water moon of developing economic.[sorry,i can't catch the meaning,"under-water moon" is a formal english saying?] Thus, it is absolutely wrong of disobeying the unjust laws.
[points out the how people should do to treat the unjust case ,what's outcome would come out if individual do things by own interests]  
Admittedly, the harm  laws would violate the society. For instance, the Indians suffer from the harmful laws which is brought by British colonize in 1920s. The colonial people, of course, should stand up to the harm laws. Nevertheless, Mahatma Gandhi’s influential advocate of Satyagraha (non-violent protest) as a means of revolution gives a good sample of resolving how to face the pernicious laws. Any violation behavior hurts the common people is not the very way to resist the harm laws,  cause[because?] it damages common people mostly.  However, because of the different historical and social background, the harm laws are not equating to the unjust laws which as the speaker claims so. Thence, the unreasonable revolting against laws is should be prohibited. People ought to amend the unreasonable laws in the legal way in a democratic society.
[developes the view of how to face unjust law when people need not just to obey, the beneficial how-to is mederate amendment]
All in all, whether a law is just or unjust is mainly depends on the personal value system. For the whole human being’s benefits, the speaker’s advocation is irresponsible. And individuals should follow the unreasonable laws before making out the legal amendment
[just sum-up,no words to say]

Ps: it's may be a fine issue with concise meaning and clear structure,but some clauses may flaw in their fluency and readability. and more ,some words may not be chosen with it's exact proneness

taotaoQUID: 2105710

3X, 在你们的帮助下我会继续改进

calsunnyUID: 2163431

写得腰酸背痛,手脚冰凉~~~~~~~~~ 同意，我手脚并用了，还写得不满意！

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”
提纲：1法律是代表大众的利益，公正与否很难有一个客观的评判标准，个人有个人的看法。------公正与否是相对概念，如果没有客观标准，怎么写下面的Unjust law那一部分呢？      
2稳定社会秩序，促进经济发展是法律制定和执行的原则。若不遵守会产生严重的后果。
      3UNJIUST LAWS 也可能危害社会，但应该通过合法的手段进行修改，坚决反对暴力解决。-----在民主社会中，在独裁社会，不公正应该应该奋起反抗的！

正文：
According to this statement, the laws are classified  two types, one is just and the other is unjust. The speaker also asserts that people should resist unjust laws more than obey just laws. In my view this assertion is unreasonable for the reason that laws can not categorize in this angle. And I strongly do not agree with making(应该是方式吧？) against with unjust laws what the speaker suggests.----就是，A的开头，我们都容易有这倾向！

A democratic society the state(？) represents the general will of the citizens, and that in obeying its laws each citizen is pursuing his own real interests, Rousseau(得将名写出来，历史上有两个) said. Therefore, the laws are on the behalf of the people in the society. By obeying the laws the individuals are pursuing their own interests. Although there are a few of citizens oppose it, because their present benefits, most of what are caused by different individual value system and different personal interest, religious belief are not protected under the laws. Consider, for example, a law that regulates abortion is legal. Individuals with particular religious beliefs regard such law as unfairness, while individuals with different value systems may tend to regard it as fairness. Hence, a law is just or unjust is more subjective issue than that can be simply judged through objective criterion. Just like 100 Hamlet in 100 individuals’ eyes. Moreover, the significance of paying attention on the reasonable of laws outweighs the fairness or unfairness of it. ---就是我上面提的问题，判断的标注很难说的，不如不从这个方面写。

In addition, the principle of formulating and carrying out the laws are stabilizing the public pace and order, promoting the prosperity of economic and maintaining the benefits of all human being. Set an assumption that, individuals only obey the laws which they view as just, revolt against the laws which they think unjust in the society. People behave under their own personal value system and own judgment standards. What is the serious consequence will come about? Obviously, the state is no longer a paradise for people to live and work. Even more, it is impossible to guarantee the basic human rights and keep the fundamental society order, and it is the under-water moon of developing economic. Thus, it is absolutely wrong of disobeying the unjust laws.---好像没有TS
      
Admittedly, the harm laws(？) would violate the society. For instance, the Indians suffer from the harmful laws which is brought by British colonize in 1920s. The colonial people, of course, should stand up to the harm laws. Nevertheless, Mahatma Gandhi’s influential advocate of Satyagraha (non-violent protest) as a means of revolution gives a good sample of resolving how to face the pernicious laws. Any violation behavior---太绝对！ hurts the common people is not the very way to resist the harm laws,  cause it damages common people mostly.  However, because of the different historical and social background, the harm laws are not equating to the unjust laws which as the speaker claims so. Thence, the unreasonable revolting against laws is should be prohibited. People ought to amend the unreasonable laws in the legal way in a democratic society.
  
All in all, whether a law is just or unjust is mainly depends on the personal value system. For the whole human being’s benefits, the speaker’s advocation is irresponsible. And individuals should follow the unreasonable laws before making out the legal amendment.

连着改了几篇，眼睛都快瞎了，5555555！不要见怪，没有帮你将语法错误改出来，不过我用红色标出来了！这篇习作充实多了，就是我在你的提纲中提出的问题请考虑。根据你写的我写了个提纲，你瞧瞧如何？
我的提纲：
立场：同意
一，法律确实有公正和不公正之分：包括法律条文，法律实施和法律效果的公正与不公正！      (比如前几年中国的婚姻法对妇女就是不公正的)
二，为了发挥法律对社会的调节作用，我们有权利也应该应该维护法律的公正性，否则会产生严重后果。----可以用你的例子
三，在民主(或者法制)社会中，维护法律的公正性必须运用合法的途径，而不能采取极端的手段。
一，

taotaoQUID: 2105710

我认为公正与否真的只是个人的主观判断
而你举的婚姻法对妇女不公平可以转为我说的关注法律的合理与否，这样更客观一些


修改后的提纲:
观点:反对作者的分类,反对作者不设条件地反抗法律
(一)法律是社会中各方面利益的平衡后的结果,当然从个人的角度出发会有不同的看法,公正与否受主观影响很大,难有客观的评判标准,我们应更关注法律的合理性(是否达到利益平衡)
(二) 稳定社会秩序，促进经济发展是法律制定和执行的原则。若不遵守会产生严重的后果。
(三)也不能忽视HARM LAWS(不是UNJUST LAWS)会危害社会,我们应通过合法手段修正,反对暴力反抗.

[ Last edited by taotaoQ on 2005-12-25 at 14:32 ]