Issue17 [勇往直前小组]十一次ByPuding

PudingUID：2364107

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: 624          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2007-7-30

The speaker claims that each person in the society should obey just laws and disobey unjust ones. In my view, this statement is too extreme. For the following two reasons: firstly, whether the law is just or unjust cannot be decided by individuals. And secondly, disobeying the so called unjust laws will bring harmful impact on the society.

Whether the laws are just or unjust cannot be judged by individuals, thus the laws should not be categories as just or unjust. In other words, every law has two aspects: it is fair to a group of individuals, however unjust to another group of people. This can be explained in two respects: Firstly, whether the law is just or unjust to one person depend on the person’s value system. Consider the controversial issue of homoerotism. People in some countries such as Holland approve this while in other countries, like China or some Eastern state, people with another culture cannot accept this kind of love. Even in the same area, people in different faith or religions may have different opinions about this issue. And secondly, the fairness of law also depends on the personal interest in the legal issue. Those people whose interest cannot be satisfied in the legal issue may consider the law as unfair, and vice verse. In fact, one of the functions of law is to strike a balance between competing interests. Consequently, the fairness of law is not objective; people cannot judge it by themselves. Although the justice of law is blind, it is not stupid.

The very function of law is to bring stability and order to the group of people that the law forced upon. For a legal system to work for a society, the laws must be knowable, fair and implemented equally among the population. Thus, we should obey the law without reservation. Disobedience even resistance will bring harmful impact on the society. It is just like the army, what the soldiers do is to comply with the rules rather than consider whether the rule is correct or not. As long as the soldiers just obey the correct rule they consider in the battlefield but refuse to obey the unjust ones, this army is bound to be defeated in the war. The issue of the law is similar. Returning to the homoerotism example mentioned above, people strongly opposed to the homoerotism may block the access to the place where queers get together and there may be conflict between them, even the opposers may bomb the place or murder the queers. These behaviors jeopardized the stability of the society and make great damage to the society. Hence, what we should do is to just obey the laws and avoid such danger.

However, when apparent flaws exist in some of the law, and it does not adapt the step of the societal development, we should not disobey or resist it either. In fact, what we should do is to appeal the mistakes in the law to the government actively. And the government should establish new rules or modify the current laws. In addition, if needed, laws in different regions or areas should be different to adapt to the local situation, making the law flexible and adaptable but keep the rigidity and unification. For instance, the Law Commission in the UK is particularly designed to modify the improper laws. Such organization can help the laws to maintain in a flexible situation.

To sum up, I insist that laws cannot be categories simply as just and unjust, and we should comply with the laws without reservation. In additions, if the law cannot adapt to the pace of the development of the society, government should consider to modify it to a more suitable one.

nornsUID：2325187

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: 624          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2007-7-30

The speaker claims that each person in the society should obey just laws and disobey unjust ones. In my view, (object，直接摆观点，用事实说话，不要给人印象是你说的)this statement is too extreme. For the following two reasons（这个，改成作者的论述忽略了两个问题什么的好些吧，for笼统了）: firstly, whether the law is just or unjust cannot be decided by individuals. And secondly, disobeying the so called unjust laws will bring harmful impact on the society.

Whether the laws are just or unjust cannot be judged by individuals, thus the laws should not be categories as just or unjust. In other words, every law has two aspects: it is fair to a group of individuals, however（while） unjust to another group of people. This can be explained in two respects: Firstly, whether the law is just or unjust to one person depend on the person’s value system. Consider the controversial issue of homoerotism. People in some countries such as Holland approve this while in other countries, like China or some Eastern state, people with another culture cannot accept this kind of love. Even in the same area, people in different faith or religions may have different opinions about this issue. And secondly, the fairness of law also depends on the personal interest in the legal issue. Those people whose interest cannot be satisfied in the legal issue may consider the law as unfair, and vice verse. In fact, one of the functions of law is to strike a balance between competing interests. Consequently, the fairness of law is not objective; people cannot judge it by themselves. Although the justice of law is blind, it is not stupid.

The very function of law is to bring stability and order to the group of people that the law forced upon.（这段是写法律的功能？不是吧，是些disobey的坏处） For a legal system to work for a society, the laws must be knowable, fair and implemented equally among the population. Thus, we should obey the law without reservation. Disobedience even resistance will bring harmful impact on the society. It is just like the army, what the soldiers do is to comply with the rules rather than consider whether the rule is correct or not. As long as the soldiers just obey the correct rule they consider in the battlefield but refuse to obey the unjust ones, this army is bound to be defeated in the war. The issue of the law is similar. Returning to the homoerotism example mentioned above, people strongly opposed to the homoerotism may block the access to the place where queers get together and there may be conflict between them, even the opposers may bomb the place or murder the queers. These behaviors jeopardized the stability of the society and make great damage to the society. Hence, what we should do is to just obey the laws and avoid such danger.

However, （我觉得这个没有转折啊）when apparent flaws exist in some of the law, and it does not adapt the step of the societal development, we should not disobey or resist it either（这应该是个问句吧？）. In fact, what we should do is to appeal the mistakes in the law to the government actively. And the government should establish new rules or modify the current laws. In addition, if needed, laws in different regions or areas should be different to adapt to the local situation, making the law flexible and adaptable but keep the rigidity and unification. For instance, the Law Commission in the UK is particularly designed to modify the improper laws. Such organization can help the laws to maintain in a flexible situation.
你的思路大概是法律的公正性是难定的
然后不能违背
然后提出解决

首先我很反感北美攻击法律unjust or not is rarly straightforward. 对不同的个体，这种分类是始终存在的，而题中的建议的落脚点也是we，是指每一个个体。这应该是一个前提。

所以孤立的提出来 公正性难定我觉得很难使思路连贯 （包括在开头）

这题 应该是 讨论 我们如何对待某些不公正的法律。问题应该围绕这个展开， 而那个 ‘法律的公正性是难定的 ’ 要不要写呢？ 要， 但是要讨论得有用

表现出来就是 1， 开头的那个问句 firstly。。要改一改 2 就是要加强body 第一段和第二段的联系


To sum up, I insist that laws cannot be categories simply as just and unjust, and we should comply with the laws without reservation. In additions, if the law cannot adapt to the pace of the development of the society, government should consider to modify it to a more suitable one.

PudingUID：2364107

The speaker claims that each person in the society should obey just laws and disobey unjust ones. In my view, (object，直接摆观点，用事实说话，不要给人印象是你说的)this statement is too extreme. For the following two reasons（这个，改成作者的论述忽略了两个问题什么的好些吧，for笼统了）: firstly, whether the law is just or unjust cannot be decided by individuals. And secondly, disobeying the so called unjust laws will bring harmful impact on the society.
改：
The speaker claims that each person in the society should obey just laws and disobey unjust ones. It seems that the statement is convincing, however, it is too extreme. In my view, the statement has neglected two problems: firstl, whether the law is just or unjust cannot be decided by individuals. And second, disobeying the so called unjust laws will bring harmful impact on the society.

Whether the laws are just or unjust cannot be judged by individuals, thus the laws should not be categories as just or unjust. In other words, every law has two aspects: it is fair to a group of individuals, however（while） unjust to another group of people. This can be explained in two respects: Firstly, whether the law is just or unjust to one person depend on the person’s value system. Consider the controversial issue of homoerotism. People in some countries such as Holland approve this while in other countries, like China or some Eastern state, people with another culture cannot accept this kind of love. Even in the same area, people in different faith or religions may have different opinions about this issue. And secondly, the fairness of law also depends on the personal interest in the legal issue. Those people whose interest cannot be satisfied in the legal issue may consider the law as unfair, and vice verse. In fact, one of the functions of law is to strike a balance between competing interests. Consequently, the fairness of law is not objective; people cannot judge it by themselves. Although the justice of law is blind, it is not stupid.

As for the laws, we should obey it without reservation. The disobedience and resistanse of the law is deleterious to our society to some extent. For the following reasons: The very function of law is to bring stability and order to the group of people that the law forced upon.（这段是写法律的功能？不是吧，是些disobey的坏处） For a legal system to work for a society, the laws must be knowable, fair and implemented equally among the population. Thus, we should obey the law without reservation. Disobedience even resistance will bring harmful impact on the society. It is just like the army, what the soldiers do is to comply with the rules rather than consider whether the rule is correct or not. As long as the soldiers just obey the correct rule they consider in the battlefield but refuse to obey the unjust ones, this army is bound to be defeated in the war. The issue of the law is similar. Returning to the homoerotism example mentioned above, people strongly opposed to the homoerotism may block the access to the place where queers get together and there may be conflict between them, even the opposers may bomb the place or murder the queers. These behaviors jeopardized the stability of the society and make great damage to the society. Hence, what we should do is to just obey the laws and avoid such danger.

However, （我觉得这个没有转折啊）when apparent flaws that jeopardizes most peoples' interest exist in some of the law, and it does not adapt the step of the societal development, we should not disobey or resist it either（这应该是个问句吧？）either一定要是问句？. In fact, what we should do is to appeal the mistakes in the law to the government actively. And the government should establish new rules or modify the current laws. In addition, if needed, laws in different regions or areas should be different to adapt to the local situation, making the law flexible and adaptable but keep the rigidity and unification. For instance, the Law Commission in the UK is particularly designed to modify the improper laws. Such organization can help the laws to maintain in a flexible situation.
你的思路大概是法律的公正性是难定的
然后不能违背 这里我本想说的是应该毫无保留的遵守，反对只能带来危害
然后提出解决 如果真的是危害到大多数人利益应该向政府反映，这种意思应该是有转折的

首先我很反感北美攻击法律unjust or not is rarly straightforward. 对不同的个体，这种分类是始终存在的，而题中的建议的落脚点也是we，是指每一个个体。这应该是一个前提。怎么说呢，可能是观点不同，我觉得的确法律公不公正是不能说的
所以孤立的提出来 公正性难定我觉得很难使思路连贯 （包括在开头）谢谢提醒

这题 应该是 讨论 我们如何对待某些不公正的法律。问题应该围绕这个展开， 而那个 ‘法律的公正性是难定的 ’ 要不要写呢？ 要， 但是要讨论得有用

表现出来就是 1， 开头的那个问句 firstly。。要改一改 2 就是要加强body 第一段和第二段的联系


To sum up, I insist that laws cannot be categories simply as just and unjust, and we should comply with the laws without reservation. In additions, if the law cannot adapt to the pace of the development of the society, government should consider to modify it to a more suitable one.

最后，感谢详拍！

nbta03UID：2326371

The speaker claims that each person in the society should obey just laws and disobey unjust ones. In my view, this statement is too extreme. For the following two reasons: firstly, whether the law is just or unjust cannot be decided by individuals. And secondly, disobeying the so called unjust laws will bring harmful impact on the society.

Whether the laws are just or unjust cannot be judged by individuals, thus the laws should not be categories as just or unjust. In other words, every law has two aspects: it is fair to a group of individuals, however unjust to another group of people. This can be explained in two respects: Firstly, whether the law is just or unjust to one person depends on the person’s value system. Consider the controversial issue of homoerotism. People in some countries such as Holland (are) approved this while in other countries, like China or some Eastern states, people with another culture cannot accept this kind of love. Even in the same area, people in different faith or religions may have different opinions about this issue. And secondly, the fairness of law also depends on the personal interest in the legal issue. Those people whose interest cannot be satisfied in the legal issue may consider the law as unfair, and vice verse. In fact, one of the functions of law is to strike a balance between competing interests. Consequently, the fairness of law is not objective; people cannot judge it by themselves. Although the justice of law is blind, it is not stupid.

这里最好承上启下直接说不管是否公正都要遵守，放在后面会让人不能一下子找到你的思路The very function of law is to bring stability and order to the group of people that the law forced upon. For a legal system to work for a society, the laws must be knowable, fair and implemented equally among the population. Thus, we should obey the law without reservation. Disobedience even resistance will bring harmful impact on the society. It is just like the army, what the soldiers do is to comply with the rules rather than consider whether the rule is correct or not. As long as the soldiers just obey the correct rule they consider in the battlefield but refuse to obey the unjust ones, this army is bound to be defeated in the war. The issue of the law is similar. Returning to the homoerotism example mentioned above, people strongly opposed to the homoerotism may block the access to the place where queers get together and there may be conflict between them, even the opposers may bomb the place or murder the queers. These behaviors jeopardized the stability of the society and make great damage to the society. Hence, what we should do is to just obey the laws and avoid such danger.

However, when apparent flaws exist in some of the去掉 law, and it does not adapt the step(改成pace, step是步骤的意思) of the societal development, we should not disobey or resist it either. In fact, what we should do is to appeal the mistakes in the law to the government actively. And the government should establish new rules or modify the current laws. In addition, if needed, laws in different regions or areas should be different to adapt to the local situation, making the law flexible and adaptable but keep the rigidity and unification. For instance, the Law Commission in the UK is particularly designed to modify the improper laws. Such organization can help the laws to maintain in a flexible situation.

To sum up, I insist that laws cannot be categories simply as just and unjust, and we should comply with the laws without reservation. In additions(addition), if the law cannot adapt to the pace of the development of the society, government should consider to modify it to a more suitable one.