issue17义无反顾小组第二次作业

yuviUID: 2169411

小蜗牛你的文章anddie不是改了吗?

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

It is not easy for people to reach an agreement on the attitude toward laws. Generally, I hold the same point of view as the statement that individuals have responsibilities to obey just laws and to disobey even resist unjust laws; although there are still problems to be considered when the statement is put into practice.

To begin with, it is everyone’s responsibilities to obey the laws. Radically, laws are the regulations that all the people in the society established【established by some people and admitted by all】. And just laws are the laws that may bring benefits to the whole society【the society as a whole, 避免和后面一句重复】, although benefits not to everyone.【although not benefit to everyone这里直接用benefit的动词形式要好一些】 Hence, to obey the laws is to bring good to the whole society, which is every individual’s responsibility. We take the business laws as an example. The business laws are constituted to limit the activities that merchants may involve in and it is comparatively just. Without business laws, most businessmen would do whatever they want to gain the profits and would bring great harm to the whole country’s economy system.【例子举得好像没有说服力。难道就因为business law 限制了商人的行为就说它是公正的？这样的话，任何一部法律都是公正的了。最好再进一步展开】

In addition, a more important responsibility of an individual is to disobey and resist unjust laws. Since laws serve the people who made it, there is no way in which we may guarantee that laws are just to everyone. There are three reasons to justify men’s disobedience against unjust laws. First, unjust laws tend to converge power and fortunes at a few people,  who make the laws and hold the power of country; and this might lead to an unsteady society if it  is left alone. This is proved by nearly all the revolutions and violent actions around the world, both nowadays and in history. Second, revolutions that are, in some way, caused by people’s resistance against unjust laws are great propulsions of the progress of civilization. From the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain to the French Revolution, both the two countries managed to create a new and better constitution and later become the most powerful countries in the world【感觉作者chienglish较浓，改成manage to become the most powerful countries by creating a new and better constitution 较通顺 】. Thirdly, according to the traditional viewpoints of Christian, all men are born equal, regardless of their races, genders or nationalities. Thus, it is quite reasonable for people’s being against unjust laws to fight for equality, the basic right that God favors us.

However, the validity of the statement should not blind us to the problems that may arise after we apply it to practice. One of the problems is the distinctions between people’s opinions on just laws and unjust laws. Since different people have different requests and attitudes to life, laws that are just in someone’s eyes might become unjust to others. For instance, the human rights that Chinese have are insufficient through Americans' eyes, as a result of different countries’ constitutions【不是因为两国的法律不同吧，而是tranditon、histroy、background condition、经济发展水平……种种因素的不同造成法制体系的不同】. Then Chinese laws become unjust, from an American’s point of view, while most Chinese don’t think so【the Chinese laws are of less justice from an American’s view 】. So it is quite significant to clarify the standard 【which can tell the difference between the just laws and unjust laws 】of just laws and unjust laws.

In summary, as a member of the society, everyone has a responsibility to make it better. One of the way of doing so is to obey the just laws and disobey the unjust ones. The problems sticking in the way will be solved as long as people keep on chasing their dreams for just laws, because it is not only the viewpoints people hold that matters, but also the development of the human civilization and society that demands. I would rather believe that it is everyone's duty and obligation to treat differently to just and unjust laws.
my views:作者逻辑清晰、语言简洁，论点明了，用简单的词语就把意思表达的比较清楚。这一点值得我学习。各方面的论据都考虑到了，但例证的说明不是很透彻，有点到为止的感觉，如果能再深入分析一些会更好。句子结构还是给人chienglish.常是几个短句中间用连词联结，】修改成复合句，更复合阅读习惯。

请教一下，怎么显示红色字体？我在word里修改后贴过来就是这个样子，看得不是很清楚。

glxingUID: 2156425

首先谢谢Anddie给我的批改，真是很认真啊，我回去马上好好修改！（我的页面一直没刷新，所以就没看到Anddie已经给我改了，不好意思）
再次感谢芹菜，刚才看了你的关于argument 和 issue 的讨论贴，受益匪浅，你辛苦了，敬礼！！！
我们会越来越好的。。。。

ralcUID: 2206404

太急了 句子小儿科 恩 没了

After thousands of years of civilization, society as well as laws is becoming more and more democratic and liberal. Diverse as the nation is, laws are not just to all the people. That is to say unjust laws do exist. In this light, what should people do against these unjust laws? Speaker suggests disobey and resist. In my opinion different solution are needed in different conditions.

Most of the times, it is necessary to resist unjust affair, for tolerance do good to neither victim himself nor to the advancing of the history. As a learner of psychology I always advise action rather than bearing. That means to ignore the unjust lines and do in the right way. So is what Marsa has done, sitting in the whites-only section. If nobody shows discontent to injustices, it will stay forever. I can not imagine Beyonce singing beautifully on the screen without the effort made by the people struggling lead by Martin Luther King. So resist unjust laws is the first step to show your stance as a equal member of the nation.

At the same time, resist is not enough to end the injustices, until being escalate into a campaign. We know that law is compared to sword, as it is a powerful tool guaranteed by armed force to sustain a serene society. Obedient people are protected while others are punished. Since single person is weak and can certainly not rival the authority, he or she can expect nothing except for punishment. The best way is to unite. We are not unfamiliar with the word, which has been proved effective and powerful again and again. From Spartan in ancient Greek to the latest campaign calling for protection over wild animals, people unite to magnify their voice.

Whatever people do, they converge at the point of law, or legislation. Sensitive law has its own immunity system. If the constitution of national legislature is democratic and receptive, things will be more convenient. The only thing people should do is to render a portfolio containing their discontent, harm of the unjust lines and suggestion. After debating in the square of Socrates result will be just. In this way, law modify by itself, avoiding negative influence on both sides of a conflict over injustices.  

To cap all, only legislature writes the law people just live with it, either just or unjust. To discharge our responsibility as a citizen, disobeying and resisting are limited. People will have to muster support as much as possible and render it to a legislature. These all would be more operative measures to justify law.

ralcUID: 2206404

论据（一）公正和不公正没有确切定义，人人都反对自己认为不公正的法律，社会会一片混乱。
      （二）法律的缺憾在民主社会可以通过较缓和的方式改善
      （三）对于一些违反人类基本原则的法律，可以认为其不公正，我们应抵制。
三放到开头来比较好，先讲一下合理性在反对比较合他们的逻辑 然后说不用全部resist 引导下一段Law can be regarded as just or unjust, and an individual is obliged to obey just laws. But is it reasonable that one disobeys and resists unjust laws? Ddiscussion of this issue  has come into vogue in recent years. In my point of view, I disagree the speaker's claim, and i would like to present some evidence to support my standpoint。

Actually, the opinion of law varies wildly, for one's attitude of what is right and wrong law are variable. Just law, defined as an established standard or rules which is free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception, provides methods for ensuring the impartial treat of people. That is to say, people get due reward or punishment for his behavior. Thus, absenting clear definition ,the judgment on whether a specific law is just or unjust is immature .Supposing everyone  resists what he deems as unjust, no law is valid and justifiable, which will lead  to nothing but chaos  among people (and去掉) in society.

Secondly, the lack of uniformity of justice not only rises direct disobedience and resistance to rules ,but also hamper people's intention to improve the justice system. 不大清楚意思Common sense tell us nothing is perfect, so as to law. They are established by the authority and represent their interests, so usually contain  inequalities in the system. But in a democratic society, the written laws, admitted by the major members, are the moral laws that each individual should follow. The flaws maybe improved by  comparatively gentle behaviors ,such as emendation、addition or reform the whole system. Simply by retaliating 这个词我也要用用 upon the society,  we can't reach any good solution 措施办法 应该换成“结果“意思的词.
Thirdly. we should realize if a law, to some extent, degrades people（'s personality去掉） ,it can be identified as unjustice. We can not forget how the segregation statutes put sand in the wheels of harmoniousness between different ethic groups last century. Violating the fundamental principles that everyone is born in equality（everyone is created equal）. it received immense objection and protest. No one have the right to distorts other's soul and  dignity. Furthermore, no law can give one kind of people a false sense of superiority while give others a false sense of inferiority only according to  the color of their skins. As far as it concerned, we are justifiable to fight for this law.

In sum, although there are various attitudes towards just law and unjust law, this can't result in the conclusion that laws is of bit effection little function in coordinate people's relationship and conduct their their behavior. It is people's right and freedom to judge whether a law is just or unjust. What’s more important, it is our responsibility to obey them in a civilized society.
除了论据三没有明显的例子 都是在说教 显得堆砌不生动 下次试试多些点例子

ralcUID: 2206404

忘了写以上是给 kittywen_16的