issue17 Ares战队第四次作业(by victor)

victorduguUID: 2176422

17. "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."
  
有两种法律：公正的和不公正的。每个社会成员都有责任遵守公正的法律，但是更重要的是，更应该不遵守和反抗不公正的法律。

反对
1)        法律的公正与不公正是相对而言的，对一部分人来说，法律是公正的，同时对另一部分来说是不公正的。法律的职责在于平衡各个团体的利益。
2)        但不管怎么样，作为一个国家的法律，应当被严格地实施和遵守，而不能因为某一部分的人利益受到了损害就不去遵守，如果是这样的话。法律的尊严就无法保证。
3)        当然，我们必须承认，法律中的确存在不合理的因素，会导致严重的不公平，这时立法者就应当考虑对法律进行修订，以维护社会利益天平的平衡。

The speaker claims that laws can be divided into two kinds: just ones and unjust ones. In addition, he calls on people to obey just laws while disobey and resist unjust laws. In my eyes, however, the speaker oversimplifies this issue for the reason that it is difficult to judge the justness of law. Moreover, people are obliged to the established laws--both just and unjust ones.

To begin with, it is difficult to decide whether a law is just or not because it may be just to one group while turns out to be unjust to another. Just as Thomas Jefferson--one of the former presidents in the United States--said, 'No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law.' One of the responsibilities of law is to seek a point at which people with different interest concerns can compromise with each other. For instance, to enhance the industrialization in the cities and elevate the living level of the urban dwellers, China used to make a series of laws which tended to distribute more national resources to the cities. People in the cities would inevitably insist that these laws are just whereas people in the countryside believe that they are totally unjust and should be repealed. This example can perfectly illustrate the point that when the justness of law is left to a specific group of people to define, there will never be absolutely just or absolutely unjust laws.

Secondly, as one of the most effective measures to keep the nation in order, whether just or unjust, the law ought to be strictly observed by all the people in the country. Admittedly, just as the above statement has demonstrated, we can never expect a law to be advantageous to every member of the society, which means there must exists a group of people to have their interests infringed upon. In this scenario, if these people choose to resist obeying the law by claiming that it is adverse to them, a chain reaction is doomed to occur--other people can also violate the established laws for the same reason. As a result, the dignity of law will cease to exist; the authority will collapse; the whole society will fall into chaos. So we can see that Law to the society is like order to the army. A powerful army requires absolute obedience, and also a stable society need complete compliance with the law.

Finally, the requirement of conformity to the law does not indicate that we should always ignore the flaws existing in the law. It is the legislature's obligation to increase the objectivity and transparency of the law, and to ensure that the law never goes beyond the principles stated in the constitution too far--such as freedom, equality and democracy. For example, Martin Luther King, one of the principal leaders of the civil rights movement, challenged to the laws against black people, such as the segregation laws that force black riders to sit in the back of buses and give up their seats to white passengers on crowded buses. It was his unremitting efforts that eventually resulted in the revision or repeal of the laws containing discrimination, and the improvement of the condition for the black in the United States. Another telling example is the Law Commission of the United States, which is responsible for amending the laws to decrease the flaws of them and make them more complete and more objective.

To sum up, it is impossible to simply identify a law with just or unjust, especially by those whose interests are profoundly influenced by it. And people are incumbent to abide by the established laws in any event. In addition, to make the law more objective, the legislators should revise the law, or even repeal it if necessary.

gamblerboUID: 2212217

issue17 Ares战队第四次作业(by victor)

17. "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."
  
有两种法律：公正的和不公正的。每个社会成员都有责任遵守公正的法律，但是更重要的是，更应该不遵守和反抗不公正的法律。

反对
1)        法律的公正与不公正是相对而言的，对一部分人来说，法律是公正的，同时对另一部分来说是不公正的。法律的职责在于平衡各个团体的利益。
2)        但不管怎么样，作为一个国家的法律，应当被严格地实施和遵守，而不能因为某一部分的人利益受到了损害就不去遵守，如果是这样的话。法律的尊严就无法保证。
3)        当然，我们必须承认，法律中的确存在不合理的因素，会导致严重的不公平，这时立法者就应当考虑对法律进行修订，以维护社会利益天平的平衡。
（结构很好！比我的强多了！！）

The speaker claims that laws can be divided into two kinds: just ones and unjust ones. In addition, he calls on people to obey just laws while （？不行吧）disobey and resist unjust laws. In my eyes, however, the speaker oversimplifies this issue for the reason that it is difficult to judge the justness of law. Moreover, people are obliged to the established laws--both just and unjust ones. (：)argument的开头借用。很不错的一段，即总结、分析了the speaker的论点，还提出了自己的理由和看法。)

To begin with, it is difficult to decide whether a law is just or not because it may be just to one group while （？不能省略it吧） turns out to be unjust to another. Just as Thomas Jefferson--one of the former presidents in the United States--said, 'No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law.' One of the responsibilities of law is to seek a point at which people with different interest concerns can compromise with each other. For instance, to enhance the industrialization in the cities and elevate the living level of the urban dwellers, China used to make a series of laws which tended to distribute more national resources to the cities. People in the cities would inevitably insist that these laws are just whereas people in the countryside believe that they are totally unjust and should be repealed. This example can perfectly illustrate the point that when the justness of law is left to a specific group of people to define, there will never be absolutely just or absolutely unjust laws.
（总－分（引用＋例子）－总，值得学习！）

Secondly, as one of the most effective measures to keep the nation in order, whether just or unjust, the law ought to be strictly observed by all the people in the country. Admittedly, just as the above statement has demonstrated （好！）, we can never expect a law to be advantageous to every member of the society, which means there must exists a group of people to have their interests infringed upon. (很好的一句话！但是放在此处或相对此段，个人感觉不太适宜。原因一，相对整段长短；原因二，相对论述的长短；原因三，略显重复。：)总之，就是它太长了，而这段太短，关于论点的论证太少。)In this scenario, if these people choose to resist obeying the law by claiming that it is adverse to them, a chain reaction is doomed to occur--other people can also violate the established laws for the same reason. As a result, the dignity of law will cease to exist; the authority will collapse; the whole society will fall into chaos. So we can see that Law (law?) to the society is like order to the army. A powerful army requires absolute obedience, and also a stable society need complete compliance with the law. (如果在As a result后多一些坏处的列举，个人觉得会使论证更加有力——也可能只是我个人偏好：)
)

Finally（建议重新选一个）, the requirement of conformity to the law does not indicate that we should always ignore the flaws existing in the law. It is the legislature's obligation to increase the objectivity and transparency of the law, and to ensure that the law never goes beyond the principles stated in the constitution too far--such as freedom, equality and democracy.（如果你能改变一下例子的次序，然后让其形成比较独立的两个支撑点，效果可能会更好。） For example, Martin Luther King, one of the principal leaders of the civil rights movement, challenged to the laws against black people, such as the segregation laws that force black riders to sit in the back of buses and give up their seats to white passengers on crowded buses. It was his unremitting efforts that eventually resulted in the revision or repeal of the laws containing discrimination, and the improvement of the condition for the black in the United States. Another telling example is the Law Commission of the United States, which is responsible for amending the laws to decrease the flaws of them and make them more complete and more objective. （突然想起你给我一句类似评语：如果在例子后面一些评论、分析应该会更好！）

To sum up, it is impossible to simply identify a law with just or unjust, especially by those whose interests are profoundly influenced by it. And people are incumbent to abide by the established laws in any event. In addition, to make the law more objective, the legislators should revise the law, or even repeal it if necessary.
（精炼！概括！好！！如果in addition后的句子能够照应、总结能更加全面就更好了。：））