Issue17 [Transcend小组]第六次作业 From 荧惑 --很烂,反面教材啊

荧惑UID: 2280559

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.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should we treat unjust law as the speaker asserted, disobey and resist? In my opinion, the individual who hold conscience should reject unjust laws only in a rational way, but a negative way.  

To begin with, laws, to maintain the order of society, should obtain a supreme authority. If anyone, even the lawmaker, disobeys a law without being punished, this event will not only turns the law to ineffective, but also depress the civilians’ fear to lex. As a result, the order of society is overthrown which cause a tremendous disaster in society.

It is true that unjust laws, different from just laws, offer a special right for just only a part of persons and discriminate the others. Breaking the balance of society, this kind of unjust laws may damage our society a lot. Looking back into the history, in the monarchism, the dominator established an unjust law to maintain his own seigniorage. Therefore, an avaricious man in power can tax civilian at will; a lust man in high position can loot any beauty wantonly; a warlike man who took charge of can conscript every person in his rule to service the war. None of the civilian can feel safety and comfort. Thus the society may be out of order which lead to a fall of an empire. So are the unjust laws in our modern society. The discrimination against African-American, which is mainly embodied in the racial cal laws, result in the Civil War. After all, an unjust law may exploit some persons’ proper rights, and break the balance the society. Since that, the unjust law should be corrected.

In terms of unjust laws, whatever resulted from the inconsideration of legislators or not, every individual should disobey or resist the unjust and establish an absolutely fair society as the speaker asserted. However, in my view, overthrowing in an irrational way is not an efficient way to reject unjust laws. In personal level,irrationaly disobeying laws, even unjust law, may make the justice lawbreaker to be a crime, and be punished according to the laws. In social level, resisting laws irrational may be utilized by some conspirators, and produce a conflict between the government and the civilian. Both of these consequences have no benefits, but harms to the lawbreakers.

Does giving up the irrational way to reject unjust laws mean there are no measures we can do to against them? Definitely not, Nonviolent and Noncooperation Movements should always be considered first. Gandhi, the Indian national leader, first referred the movement. This movement not only was succeed in establishing Indian freedom, but also waned the religious violence in Indian and Pakistan. Another example, the civil rights leader Martin Luther King was inspired by the nonviolent movements as well, and leaded to a revolution in eliminating the discrimination of African-American people. Since law is similiar with the politics,  it provides us the way to reject unjust laws.

In sum, unjust laws must be corrected since its damage to the balance of our society. But we should reject in a rational way, and nonviolent and noncooperation movements takes us revelation.



[ 本帖最后由 荧惑 于 2007-3-17 23:16 编辑 ]

iq28UID: 2152875

Should we treat unjust law as the speaker asserted, disobey and resist? In my opinion, the individual who hold conscience should reject unjust laws only in a rational way, but a negative way.  (虽然一般人都会认为just law要遵守...你也不能就此无视题目的另外一半啊.just law还是要提出的.另一半对于unjust law的观念提出的很清楚)

To begin with, laws, to maintain the order of society, should obtain a supreme authority. If anyone, even the lawmaker, disobeys a law without being punished, this event will not only turns the law to ineffective, but also depress the civilians’ fear to lex. As a result, the order of society is overthrown which cause a tremendous disaster in society. (到这里没有看出你这段对于下面的论证有什么帮助,只是讲了违法就会导致社会混乱.看你下面怎么衔接了)

It is true that unjust laws, different from just laws, offer a special right for just only a part of persons and discriminate the others. (不通) Breaking (breaking前面可以加个连接词,更加清楚看出两句话之间关系.) the balance of society, this kind of unjust laws may damage our society a lot. Looking back into the history, in the monarchism, the dominator established an unjust law to maintain his own seigniorage. Therefore, an avaricious man in power can tax civilian at will; a lust man in high position can loot any beauty wantonly; a warlike man who took charge of can conscript every person in his rule to service the war. (还在说unjust law的坏处.题目要我们论证的是法律的分类,还有我们对于这些法律应有的态度.) None of the civilian can feel safety and comfort. Thus the society may be out of order which lead to a fall of an empire. So are the unjust laws in our modern society. The discrimination against African-American, which is mainly embodied in the racial cal laws, result in the Civil War. After all, an unjust law may exploit some persons’ proper rights, and break the balance the society. Since that, the unjust law should be corrected. (终于出现了要论证的关键点)

(前两个body明显在beat around the bush.先说法律的地位跟重要性(又没有涉及到分类),再讲unjust law的坏处(最后才提到要correct,论证都没有开始).)

In terms of unjust laws, (这个开头看了让人以为你上一段讲的是just laws,这一段转到unjust laws了.应该顺接上面的body讲到应该怎么correct.) whatever resulted from the inconsideration of legislators or not, (没看懂...) every individual should disobey or resist the unjust and establish an absolutely fair society as the speaker asserted. However, in my view, overthrowing in an irrational way is not an efficient way to reject unjust laws. (ts在这里才出现.前面都只是同意复述作者观念.) In personal level, irrationaly disobeying laws, even unjust law, (这个让步没必要.本段就是在说怎么针对unjust laws) may make the justice lawbreaker (你是想表达正义的违法者的意思么?) to be a crime, and be punished according to the laws. In social level, resisting laws irrationally may be utilized by some conspirators, and produce a conflict between the government and the civilian. (只是说了irrationally,没有具体讲到什么是irrationally的disobey,空洞.) Both of these consequences have no benefits, but harms to the lawbreakers.

Does giving up the irrational way to reject unjust laws mean there are no measures we can do to against them? (这句反问感觉没必要,太明显了,肯定对应irrational就是rational了.不如直接给出观念比如Instead using irrational.....) Definitely not, Nonviolent and Noncooperation Movements should always be considered first. (这个first画蛇添足.前面是在说两个解决方法根本就是一个能用一个不能用,first一出变成了哪个方法优先的论证了) Gandhi, the Indian national leader, first referred the movement. This movement not only was (删) succeed in establishing Indian freedom, but also waned the religious violence in Indian and Pakistan. (例子不要说出这些反抗的成果,要突出非暴力的理智反抗之于非理智的反抗的优势.) Another example, the civil rights leader Martin Luther King was inspired by the nonviolent movements as well, and leaded to a revolution in eliminating the discrimination of African-American people. (同上) Since law is similiar with the politics, (此类比无必要.金的反歧视也可以就认为是在法律领域的斗争了)  it provides us the way to reject unjust laws.

(这一段终于落在题目希望的范畴之内.不过问题也不小.基本没有看到正面论证.然后例子的给出也没有显示出rational之于irrational的优势,没有说出为什么irrational不可以而rational可以.没有支持到ts.)

In sum, unjust laws must be corrected since its damage to the balance of our society. But we should reject in a rational way, and nonviolent and noncooperation movements takes us revelation.

开始觉得你beat around the bush比较严重.
后来再看看题目,觉得也不完全是这个样子.
你的思路
法律的至高无上重要性--->不公法律的危害--->所以要反抗--->但是反抗不能用不理智的方法.
也算是比较切题.
不过传统的切入点一般喜欢放在法律的分类just v.s. unjust ,还有反抗的方法上.
似乎很少有人在讨论不公正的法律的危害来推导出我们必须反抗它,因为这个观念已经是一个commonsense了.
如果你在不公正法律是有害所以要反抗这一点上面论证不出什么新的观念,我觉得最好还是不要选择这个作为切入点.否则看了非常乏味,也容易让人觉得你在兜圈子.

微观上论证细节我只看了后两个body(因为一开始觉得你前两个body是兜圈子就没有细看:L ,你自己看看吧,汗)
倒数第二个,只是讲了irrationally,没有具体说irrationally的表现形式,空洞.
最后一个body,首先基本没有看到说理论证;其次例子的侧重点把握得也不好.固然要说出rational的反抗的成果,但是更要对比突出rational v.s. irrational 胜出的地方在哪里,否则等于没有论证,只是提供了这么一种现象,用了rational的方法,效果就好.无法让人信服.

大框架基本没问题.加油吧

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-3-18 02:41 编辑 ]

iq28UID: 2152875

虽然你的思路可以串起来

但是实战中段落之间的衔接还是不好

承上启下的句子如果有的话会使文章的思路清晰而且精彩

荧惑UID: 2280559

:loveliness: 谢谢啦，好好学习...

see329UID: 2260355

“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.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should we treat unjust law as the speaker asserted, disobey and resist? In my opinion, the individual who hold conscience should reject unjust laws only in a rational way, but a negative way.  //一句指出ts！
To begin with, laws, to maintain the order of society, should obtain a supreme authority. If anyone, even the lawmaker, disobeys a law without being punished, this event will not only turns the law to ineffective, but also depress the civilians’ fear to lex. As a result, the order of society is overthrown ，which cause a tremendous disaster in society./which是指the order of society is overthrown？//感觉这段没太多价值，可以删掉

It is true that unjust laws, different from just laws, offer a special right for just only a part of persons and（to） discriminate the others. Breaking the balance of society, this kind of unjust laws may damage our society a lot. Looking back into the history, in the monarchism, the dominator established an unjust law to maintain his own seigniorage. Therefore, an avaricious man in power can tax civilian at will; a lust man in high position can loot any beauty wantonly; a warlike man who took charge of can conscript every person in his rule to service the war. None of the civilian can feel safety and comfort. Thus the society may be out of order which lead to a fall of an empire. So are the unjust laws in our modern society. The discrimination against African-American, which is mainly embodied in the racial cal laws, result in the Civil War. After all, an unjust law may exploit some persons’ proper rights, and break the balance the society. Since that, the unjust law should be corrected. //第一个例子很好，但第二个与段的ts（offer a special right for just only a part of persons and（to） discriminate the others）关系相反？



In terms of unjust laws, whatever resulted from the inconsideration of legislators or not, every individual should disobey or resist the unjust and establish an absolutely fair society as the speaker asserted. However, in my view, overthrowing in an irrational way is not an efficient way to reject unjust laws. In personal level,irrationaly disobeying laws, even unjust law, may make the justice lawbreaker to be a crime, and be punished according to the laws. In social level, resisting laws irrational may be utilized by some conspirators, and produce a conflict between the government and the civilian. Both of these consequences have no benefits, but harms to the lawbreakers.

Does giving up the irrational way to reject unjust laws mean there are no measures we can do to against them? Definitely not, Nonviolent and Noncooperation Movements should always be considered first. Gandhi, the Indian national leader, first referred the movement. This movement not only was succeed in establishing Indian freedom, but also waned the religious violence in Indian and Pakistan. Another example, the civil rights leader Martin Luther King was inspired by the nonviolent movements as well, and leaded to a revolution in eliminating the discrimination of African-American people. Since law is similiar with the politics,  it provides us the way to reject unjust laws.

In sum, unjust laws must be corrected since its damage to the balance of our society. But we should reject in a rational way, and nonviolent and noncooperation movements takes us revelation.


去掉第二段。或者加入the function of just laws for human being.再写 the bad function of unjust laws, 接着质疑作者的方法，同时给出自己的方法。这样的话，四、五段作用就逻辑显现了。

希望到我的楼层（23＃）去拍拍，大家共同进步！



[ 本帖最后由 see329 于 2007-3-25 11:33 编辑 ]