issue17 by kici 求互拍 有拍必应（不错的习作by expire7）

kiciUID: 169506

第二篇issue，昨天晚上骑车回去突然想到一些好idea，
开头结尾有些抄北美280，其余都是自己写的。
jewish laws里关于slavery和gay问题是看的west wing season1里面的death penalty一集里面提到的。谁能提供一下详细资料？google搜索出来，校园网上不去……sigh 我觉得是个不错的例证。
8月6号AW, 大家加油。

恳求互拍。有拍必回拍:)

基本思路就是
1法律分类为公平不公平就有主观因素，分类不正确
2每人都反抗自己认为的法律会让社会陷入混乱状态
3如果要修正法律不合理地方，利用和平的手段更好。
4从长远来看，法律永远是一个不断修正不断尝试过程。


TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 560          TIME: 00:53:00          DATE: 2007-6-29 21:23:10

In this statement, each person has a duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it can lead to a harmful means of legal reform, even sometimes the reform is necessary and significant.

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is hardly a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system. If we obey and resist any law we consider wrong, the world gets into trouble. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. For example, a young man blindly walking in the middle of the highroad, which he consider as his freedom, whereas insulting the regulation of transport, put himself in danger as well as others. Or on other issues, like smoking in the public place, is someone's freedom of choice, but it violates others' civil rights and dangers the public's health. Therefore, the way that law categorized into just and unjust is misleading.

Additionally, even sometimes the law need some reform or adjustment, every individual in a society disobeying and resisting laws only makes the world disordered and rampant. Due to the reason listed above - every body has own judgment about fairness of laws, if every citizen took their own hostile altitudes towards own legal system, the actions only resulted in long-suffering conflict and debate, even violence, sometime worse enough fell in a state of anarchy.

Does that mean we should obey any laws without argument or at least expressing our own interests and opinion? The history tells us the answer is absolutely no. But it is more practical for us to resort to the peaceful way and legal process instead of the violent resistance. When faced the race discrimination in America after Second World War, Martin Luther King stepped up to express and spread the opinion of equity of people regardless of the skin colors. Without the unbending endeavor and passionate speech, the African American could probably stay "black area" in the back of the bus.

In the long term, I am afraid the speaker is right on the philosophy side of the point, which means that we badly need adjust some specific laws when the time passed and the law. In retrospect, the old Jewish laws rule the slavery is acceptable and gay is immoral, which are the highest wisdom at that age, but at present it proves all wrong after many anonymous ancients' efforts. Similar thing went in before and will come in the future, such as abortion, homosex, plural marriages and death penalty. In these issues, heated debate in the Congress is inescapable, because the lasting problem keep questioning our common value, and challenge the legal system, which makes the history go smoothly and correctly.

In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable person with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of the specific laws. Accordingly, peaceful actions rather than violent and radical activities are justified and in the long run, such adjustment to our law is crucial since the legal system tend to protect the majority of people being jeopardized and increase the welfare of the society.

[ 本帖最后由 expire7 于 2007-7-4 02:03 编辑 ]

expire7UID: 2160574

seat taken

expire7UID: 2160574

issue17 by kici 求互拍 有拍必应
第二篇issue，昨天晚上骑车回去突然想到一些好idea，
开头结尾有些抄北美280，其余都是自己写的。
jewish laws里关于slavery和gay问题是看的west wing season1里面的death penalty一集里面提到的。谁能提供一下详细资料？google搜索出来，校园网上不去……sigh 我觉得是个不错的例证。
8月6号AW, 大家加油。

恳求互拍。有拍必回拍

基本思路就是
1法律分类为公平不公平就有主观因素，分类不正确
2每人都反抗自己认为的法律会让社会陷入混乱状态
3如果要修正法律不合理地方，利用和平的手段更好。
4从长远来看，法律永远是一个不断修正不断尝试过程。


TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 560          TIME: 00:53:00          DATE: 2007-6-29 21:23:10

看中文提纲还不错。

In this statement, each person has a duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First（firstly or at first这里只能用firstly）, it wrongly（如果改成武断地，可能更好） categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and(删除)  secondly, it can lead to a harmful means of legal reform, even sometimes the reform is necessary and significant.

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is hardly a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system. If we obey and resist any law we consider wrong, the world gets into trouble. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. For example, a young man blindly walking in the middle of the highroad, which he consider as his freedom, whereas insulting the regulation of transport, put himself（him） in danger as well as others. Or on other issues, like smoking in the public place, is someone's freedom of choice, but it violates others' civil rights and dangers the public's health. Therefore, the way that law categorized into just and unjust is misleading.一二句合起来做TS可能更好。

Additionally, even sometimes the law need some reform or adjustment, every individual in a society disobeying and resisting laws only makes the world disordered and rampant. Due to the reason listed above - every body has own judgment about fairness of laws, if every citizen took their own hostile altitudes towards own legal system, the actions only resulted in long-suffering conflict and debate, even violence, sometime worse enough fell in a state of anarchy.(能够加点例子就更好了。)

Does that mean we should obey any laws without argument or at least expressing our own interests and opinion? The history tells us the answer is absolutely no. But it is more practical for us to resort to the peaceful way and legal process instead of the violent resistance. When faced the race discrimination in America after Second World War, Martin Luther King stepped up to express and spread the opinion of equity of people regardless of the skin colors. Without the unbending endeavor and passionate speech, the African American could probably stay "black area" in the back of the bus.

In the long term, I am afraid the speaker is right on the philosophy side of the point, which means that we badly need adjust some specific laws when the time passed and the law. In retrospect, the old Jewish laws rule the slavery is acceptable and gay is immoral, which are the highest wisdom at that age, but at present it proves all wrong after many anonymous ancients' efforts. Similar thing went in before and will come in the future, such as abortion, homosex（homosexual）, plural marriages and death penalty. In these issues, heated debate in the Congress is inescapable, because the lasting problem keep questioning our common value, and challenge（ing） the legal system, which makes the history go smoothly and correctly.

In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable person with different priorities will always disagree about(with?) the fairness of the specific laws. Accordingly, peaceful actions rather than violent and radical activities are justified and in the long run, such adjustment to our law is crucial since the legal system tend to protect the majority of people being jeopardized and increase the welfare of the society.

不错的文章。简单的朴素写作风格，我个人比较喜欢。不过如果偶尔来一点华丽的词藻就更好了。

iq28UID: 2152875

辛苦了:handshake

yaoqian0424UID: 2323517

issue17 by kici 求互拍 有拍必应（不错的习作by expire7）
第二篇issue，昨天晚上骑车回去突然想到一些好idea，
开头结尾有些抄北美280，其余都是自己写的。
jewish laws里关于slavery和gay问题是看的west wing season1里面的death penalty一集里面提到的。谁能提供一下详细资料？google搜索出来，校园网上不去……sigh 我觉得是个不错的例证。
8月6号AW, 大家加油。
恳求互拍。有拍必回拍
基本思路就是
1法律分类为公平不公平就有主观因素，分类不正确
2每人都反抗自己认为的法律会让社会陷入混乱状态
3如果要修正法律不合理地方，利用和平的手段更好。
4从长远来看，法律永远是一个不断修正不断尝试过程。

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 560          TIME: 00:53:00          DATE: 2007-6-29 21:23:10

In this statement, each person has a duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. In my view this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust; and secondly, it can lead to a harmful means of legal reform, even sometimes the reform is necessary and significant.
开门见山的开头，简洁明了，没说的了

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is hardly a straightforward issue. The fairness of any law depends on one's personal value system. If we obey and resist any law we consider wrong这句有语意错误，obey 和resist 同时用？, the world gets改will get into trouble. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. For example, a young man blindly walking in the middle of the highroad, 这里语法不太对，which 变成指代上句中的man 了，前后两句都是从句，没有主句了which he consider considersas his freedom, whereas insulting the regulation of transport, put himself in danger as well as others 可加到himself后. Or on other issues, like smoking in the public place, is someone's freedom of choice, but it violates others' civil rights and dangers the public's health 这个例子需要提一下法律对吸烟的限制. Therefore, the way that law categorized into just and unjust is misleading.
除了一些小小的语法错误，论证结构上还是很严密的

Additionally, even sometimes the law needneeds some reform or adjustment, every individual in a society disobeying and resisting laws only makes the world disordered and rampant. Due to the reason listed above - every body has own judgment about fairness of laws, if every citizen took their own hostile altitudes towards own legal system, the actions only resulted in long-suffering conflict and debate, even violence, sometime worse enough fell in a state of anarchy这样主语就是actions而不是result 了.
这段是上一段的进一步论证，LZ的长句用的很好，但表达的内容还不够丰富，最好能在深入展开来说， 加些例证

Does that mean we should obey any laws without argument or at least expressing our own interests and opinion? The history tells us the answer is absolutely no. 这里既然提到了历史，就应该适当展开一下说明But it is more practical for us to resort to the peaceful way and legal process instead of the violent resistance. When faced the race discrimination in America after Second World War, Martin Luther King stepped up to express and spread the opinion of equity of people regardless of the skin colors. Without the unbending endeavor and passionate speech, the African American could probably stay "black area" in the back of the bus. 每次举例后应再次适当阐述下自己的观点，而不是举了例子就不管他了
这段除了收尾都还不错

In the long term, I am afraid the speaker is right on the philosophy side of the point,前后两句的衔接还不够紧密，作者的意思是应该遵守公正的，反对不公正的，而没有提出要修正调整的意思 which means that we badly need adjust some specific laws when the time passed and the law去掉？. In retrospect, the old Jewish laws rule the slavery is acceptable and gay is immoral, which are the highest wisdom at that age, but at present it proves all wrong after many anonymous ancients' efforts我觉得最好用上时代评判标准不同这个原因，无名前辈的努力会成功也是时代变迁的缘故吧. Similar thing went in before and will come in the future, such as abortion, homosex, plural marriages and death penalty. In these issues, heated debate in the Congress大写的congress 是指美国国会吧 is inescapable, because the lasting problem keep questioning our common value, and challenge the legal system, which makes the history go smoothly and correctly最后的从句好像对论证没有起作用，有点多余或者是换种说法.

In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests这个是什么意思啊？ , reasonable person with different priorities will always这个极端的词最好换一个 disagree about the fairness of the specific laws. Accordingly, peaceful actions rather than violent and radical activities are justified and in the long run, such adjustment to our law is crucial since the legal system tend to protect the majority of people加from being jeopardized and increase the welfare of the society.
LZ的写作角度还是很独特的，从多方面论证，逻辑上衔接也比较流畅，语言也很好，擅长用长句来表达，
不过要注意长句引起的歧异，比如现行词指代模糊
还有个别词可能用的不是很恰当
LZ写的很不错了，值得我多学习
吹毛求疵小评一番，见笑了，意见仅供参考

kiciUID: 169506

感谢!前几天回家,火车上，刚到
坐下来 慢慢看.
多谢expire7斑竹 yaoqian0424