issue174 法律的固定性，互拍留连接．定回拍(sally)

abobibbyUID: 2174676

174"Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places."

提纲
１，法律的目的是服务与社会，并惩罚错误行为，而社会是多样性的，过去和现在不同，Ａ地Ｂ地不同，法律应该灵活以适应变化

２，从个人来讲，固定的法律有时后和人权矛盾，(新颖）

３，但是这种灵活是以法律的威严和严肃为基础的，所以只是在大筐架下做小变动
.
正文
In the broad interpretation of law, which means to enforce obligation to individuals, should be purportedly unbiased, objective or even rigid. With regard to the realistic problems and the society’s nature of diversification, however, law should be changeable to some extent as as to meet the needs (of )societal development of the world, and to solve some problems in a humanistic way.

First and foremost, the very aim of law’s function is to mediate and regulate relations between individual(s) （说的绝对些了吧，用one of the very aims 会不会更好？）, and  law should serve as a criteria to guarantee the societal order. Under such a circumstance, law should not keep fixed since the concrete situations invloving individuals are different. For example, in the Islamic region, the law which prohibitates killing cattle( a law implemented in Laos as a means to protect extant livestock) is not feasible because according to doctrine of Muslim eating pork is a symbol of profanity. Consequently cattle turns out to be Muslim’s main food supplies, and therefore forbidding cattle-killing is a destroyer rather than a server to the society as law should be. （我有点搞不清楚，既然在伊斯兰教国家中主要吃cattles又怎么会有禁杀cattles的法律被制定出来?) In terms of laws’ function to punish wrongdoings, law as well should be flexible in that the extent of wrongdoings to which they have negative bearings on others varies greatly from place to place. (这句是不是写错了，应该是the extent of the negative bearings to which the same kind of wrongdoings have on others?)Take stealing for example, stealing an ordinary piece of furniture in a company is comparatively a slight crime since it does no do great harm to the company. Neverthelss, loss of some confidential document, which contains the priceless record of the company’s strategy of management, is definitely more serious, or even a disaster to the company. In this sense, fixed items about punishing measures for pilferer slated in law is too little for a confidential-document-thief, while too much for a forniture-thief. (常识而言，根据所造成的损失量刑，是法律的基本功能之一啊，如何能能证明法律需要考虑实际情况而必须灵活呢？我觉得应该这样举例来证明法律需要灵活的考虑各种背景，偷面包店里的一个面包，和偷快饿死的人的一个面包所受的惩罚应该是不同的）Therefore, laws should vary in accordance with the concrete condition, otherewise the rigid items in them are bound（to） influence the fair-and-square judgement and reasonable punishmen.

In terms of the relation between human rights and laws, it’s almost impossible to determine which should be given predetermination. An striking example involes the debate over enthanais(physician-assisted suicide). On the one hand, the basic liberal right should give rise to other individual rights because, for patients, they have the rights to withhold medical treatments so long as they thinks they have already reached a stage where treatment make no difference but increase their sufferings,in this situation, it’s better for someone to help them die since only death could put an end to their pain. On the other hadn, under the present system, killing another human being is very serious ,and as a result,egally permitting certain types of physician-assisted suicide would gradually come to undermine the widespread social reluctance to kill, thus leading to further relaxation of the law in future. In this case, rigid laws either to suport enthanais or to reject it are not advocated because preference to any side would result in chaos in people or in societal order.

Last but not least, while laws should vary properly so as to fit in with the complicated network of society, they absolutely cannot fly in the face of laws’nature of solemnity. If they （这个they是什么？用被动句不是更好？）neglect laws' seriousness, laws will be bogged down into a low-grade status as only a  flexible a tool to guarantee individual interest at the cost of  societal well-being. Consider, without the fixed written castigatory items about manslaughter, all killers would not be restricted by laws, thus, they may conduct crims at their own will and for their own sake. In turn, the whole society will become a original tribe, lacking regulation

In closing, some matters on the fringes of life are essentially opaque, and they could not be effectively solved by explicit and fixed laws. In this sense, it’s highly recommened that laws be established with plenty (of) free room so that they can be used to manipulate flexible condition. As a saying goes: nothing is definite, including law.

组长的观点很新颖，特别是人权那一段，我觉得那个例子可以作为（laws cannot be rigid for some complicated social issues 的很好的例子）

我的论文，也请组长看看吧
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

sallyxinduUID: 2131253

First and foremost, the very aim of law’s function is to mediate and regulate relations between individual(s) （说的绝对些了吧，用one of the very aims 会不会更好？）, and  law should serve as a criteria to guarantee the societal order. Under such a circumstance, law should not keep fixed since the concrete situations invloving individuals are different. For example, in the Islamic region, the law which prohibitates killing cattle( a law implemented in Laos as a means to protect extant livestock) is not feasible because according to doctrine of Muslim eating pork is a symbol of profanity. Consequently cattle turns out to be Muslim’s main food supplies, and therefore forbidding cattle-killing is a destroyer rather than a server to the society as law should be. （我有点搞不清楚，既然在伊斯兰教国家中主要吃cattles又怎么会有禁杀cattles的法律被制定出来?) In terms of laws’ function to punish wrongdoings, law as well should be flexible in that the extent of wrongdoings to which they have negative bearings on others varies greatly from place to place. (这句是不是写错了，应该是the extent of the negative bearings to which the same kind of wrongdoings have on others?)Take stealing for example, stealing an ordinary piece of furniture in a company is comparatively a slight crime since it does no do great harm to the company. Neverthelss, loss of some confidential document, which contains the priceless record of the company’s strategy of management, is definitely more serious, or even a disaster to the company. In this sense, fixed items about punishing measures for pilferer slated in law is too little for a confidential-document-thief, while too much for a forniture-thief. (常识而言，根据所造成的损失量刑，是法律的基本功能之一啊，如何能能证明法律需要考虑实际情况而必须灵活呢？我觉得应该这样举例来证明法律需要灵活的考虑各种背景，偷面包店里的一个面包，和偷快饿死的人的一个面包所受的惩罚应该是不同的）请问一下这是什么面包啊，我没太能理解你的意思？？呵呵，可不可以说清楚点啊？Therefore, laws should vary in accordance with the concrete condition, otherewise the rigid items in them are bound（to） influence the fair-and-square judgement and reasonable punishmen.

xinxinzi0719UID: 182812

In the broad interpretation of law, which means(mean to do sth 是不是只有打算的意思 有意味的意思么？我记不太清了) to enforce obligation to individuals, should be purportedly（purportedly可疑的 法律怎么是可疑的无偏见呢？？应该是unpurportedly） unbiased, objective or even rigid. With regard to the realistic problems and the society’s nature of diversification, however, law should be changeable to some extent as to meet the needs societal development of the world, and to solve some problems in a humanistic way.（用简短的开头点出了论点 应该变化）

First and foremost, the very aim of law’s function is to mediate and regulate relations between individual, and law should serve as a criteria to guarantee the societal order. Under such a circumstance, law should not keep fixed since the concrete situations invloving（involving） individuals are different. For example, in the Islamic region, the law which prohibitates（prohibits） killing cattle( a law implemented in Laos as a means to protect extant livestock) is not feasible because according to doctrine of Muslim eating pork is a symbol of profanity. Consequently cattle turns out to be Muslim’s main food supplies, and therefore forbidding cattle-killing is a destroyer rather than a server to the society as law should be. In terms of laws’ function to punish wrongdoings, law as well should be flexible in that the extent of wrongdoings to which they have negative bearings on others varies greatly from place to place. Take stealing for example, stealing an ordinary piece of furniture in a company is comparatively a slight crime since it does no do great harm to the company. Neverthelss(nevertheless) , loss of some confidential document, which contains the priceless record of the company’s strategy of management, is definitely more serious, or even a disaster to the company. In this sense, fixed items about punishing measures for pilferer slated in law is too little for a confidential-document-thief, while too much for a forniture-thief. (法律对偷家具和偷文件的行为有着不同的量刑 这个作为例子支持论据law should not keep fixed since the concrete situations invloving（involving） individuals are different 并不合适吧 而你举得例子却是任何一个法律所具备的 不同的罪过不同的量刑 我觉得应该是同一个事实不同的情况下法律不应一概而论 比如一个人突然在公共场合窒息 医学院的学生为了抢救生命作了气管切开命保住了但是却留下了后遗症 对于学生的行为法律是否应该惩处 ps学生无行医资格) Therefore, laws should vary in accordance with the concrete condition, otherewise(otherwise) the rigid items in them are bound influence the fair-and-square judgement and reasonable punishmen（punishment）. (如果能上来第一句话就点出分论点就使文章更清晰直接点出不同的情况法律要变化)

In terms of the relation between human rights and laws, it’s almost impossible to determine which should be given predetermination. （这个和你的论点有什么关联呢 论点是法律要不要变 这和人权谁占先决权有什么关系）An striking example involes（involves） the debate over enthanais（安乐死是enthanasia）(physician-assisted suicide). On the one hand, the basic liberal right should give rise to other individual rights because, for patients, they have the rights to withhold medical treatments so long as they thinks they have already reached a stage where treatment make no difference but increase their sufferings,in this situation, it’s better for someone to help them die since only death could put an end to their pain. On the other hadn(hand ), under the present system, killing another human being is very serious ,and as a result, egally(legally) permitting certain types of physician-assisted suicide would gradually come to undermine the widespread social reluctance to kill, thus leading to further relaxation of the law in future. In this case, rigid laws either to suport enthanais or to reject it are not advocated because preference to any side would result in chaos in people or in societal order. (例子举得不错 如果分论点能改改就好了)

Last but not least, while laws should vary properly so as to fit in with the complicated network of society, they absolutely cannot fly in the face of laws’ nature of solemnity. If they neglect laws' seriousness, laws will be bogged down into a low-grade status as only a flexible a tool to guarantee individual interest at the cost of societal well-being. Consider, without the fixed written castigatory items about manslaughter, all killers would not be restricted by laws, thus, they may conduct crims（crimes） at their own will and for their own sake. In turn, the whole society will become a original tribe, lacking regulation.

In closing, some matters on the fringes of life are essentially opaque, and they could not be effectively solved by explicit and fixed laws. In this sense, it’s highly recommended that laws be established with plenty free room so that they can be used to manipulate flexible condition. As a saying goes : nothing is definite, including law.
提点建议阿：1.提到法律最好还是用复数吧laws 文章有的用单数有的用复数应该同一
            2.你在第一段了写明了你的论点law should be changeable to some extent as to meet the needs societal development of the world, and to solve some problems in a humanistic way.可在你的文章中怎么没有体现to meet the needs societal development of the world呢？我觉得你应该改改你的分论点这样能更好的体现论点。