issue17 【勇往直前】

nornsUID：2325187

这是以前未限时精心打造的作品，呵呵～～


分论点
       1 ，法律是表征集体利益的行为准则，公正是个相对概念，当集团利益与其不一致时，即相对不公正时，我们应该想办法使法律制定者获得反馈。
进一步地，如果当不一致的时候不采取行动，会激化矛盾
       2，这种行动本身，也是社会修正其规则得以前进的方法
       3（反面让步）但是我们的反馈手段必须控制在一个理性的不阻碍法律正常运行的范围内
  in sum 结尾

When laws seem unjust to us, should we obey it? Such a controversial issue can raise many different responds. In balance, I believe that when such situations occur, we should reveal the unjust, or make our unwillingness heard by the legislative; but equal importantly, obedience should be the preconditions of such actions.
    For my part, there are two arguments why I emphasize the importance of certain actions when unjust occurs. The first has to do with the benefits of individuals. By balancing the competing interests of different classes, the law is designed to guarantee that the whole society works in a proper way. When some laws are unjust to us, or generally to a certain classes, we are reasonable to suppose, the process of balancing, which is the inherit function of laws, doesn't work so well and our benefits are harmed. Henceforth, in order for some adequate adaptations, we should take some affirmative means to make our voices heard; otherwise the only result is bearing such unjust for good. Just consider that, while Martine Luther King and his compatriots were deprived of the equal rights as the white people, if he kept silence, can the laws of discrimination be removed? Therefore, it's not difficult to draw the conclusion that the operative actions of reveling unjust
Furthermore, in the example above, if no measures are taken, when King and his men were overbearing the discrimination from the white, just like the only result of an over inflated balloon is blown up, the compromise on the laws containing discrimination will lead to nowhere but radical conflict, which both sides are unwilling to see. Such evidence shows that completely obedience often has the opposite effect of what is expected.
     The second argument has to do with the development of society. When Laws are functioning well, under such regulations society would lead itself reaching the maximum interests. However, the society is an intricate matrix composed of different classes with competing interests. Not only the interests of each class, but the each class itself never cease varying. To keep laws adequate to such complicated situations, the feedbacks from classes that point out the unjust laws are quite essential. For instance, in the 1980s of China, there's a nationwide rural reform, beginning from the introduction of household contract responsibility system; while the genesis of which, is actually the voices from several peasants who regard the former regulations of so-called "every people eat from the same big pot" as unjust. When such feedback heard by the government, the adaptation, or to say, the approval of the new system that link the remuneration of peasants directly to the output of the fields, has greatly encouraged the enthusiasm of peasants, leading to tremendous economic achievements. So when we found some laws unjust, making our voices heard is not only for our own benefits; meanwhile, it also plays an active part in the improvement of the society.
But on the other hand, the measure of feedback that reveals the unjust laws should be restricted in a rational realm. No matter what, obedience must be the preconditions. To demonstrate the point, firstly, as the value system and religious beliefs differ from person to person, there can never be a universal consensus on the judgment of laws. Consider，the problem of euthanasia, as an example. Individuals with certain religious beliefs and cultural background may view it as just; while people brought up in a completely different environment might consider it as murder. Thus, someone’s just tends to draw an opposite conclusion in others viewpoints. If obedience were not taken as the foundation of our feedback measures, the only result will be that everyone only acts according to his own willingness. If a soldier considers it just to fight, he will shoot; if a millionaire thinks the taxation unjust, he might refuse to pay the tax; if a driver considers the traffic rules useless, he'll probably disobey it. Then the function of laws that provide general regulations to make the society operate smoothly is invalidated, under which circumstances society will go back to anarchism. Therefore, our behaviors should be regulated by even unjust laws before certain adaptations are made.
    In sum, without actions of feedback, laws cannot remedy themselves to facilitate the progress of society; without obedience of all the individuals, laws cannot take effect. Hence, faced with unjust laws, it is equally important to obey them and to reveal the unjust part to legislative.

woodmanUID：161906

When laws seem unjust to us, should we obey it? Such a controversial issue can raise many different responds. In balance, I believe that when such situations occur, we should reveal the unjust, or make our unwillingness heard by the legislative; but equal importantly, obedience should be the preconditions of such actions.   

For my part, there are two arguments why I emphasize the importance of certain actions when unjust occurs. The first has to do with the benefits of individuals. By balancing the competing interests of different classes, the law is designed to guarantee that the whole society works in a proper way. When some laws are unjust to us, or generally to a certain classes, we are reasonable to suppose, the process of balancing, which is the inherit function of laws, doesn't work so well and our benefits are harmed（偶觉得你这句有点因果颠倒，因为利益受损我们才会觉得不公平的吧）. Henceforth, in order for some adequate adaptations, we should take some affirmative means to make our voices heard; otherwise the only result is bearing such unjust for good. Just consider that, while Martine Luther King and his compatriots were deprived of the equal rights as the white people, if he kept silence, can the laws of discrimination be removed? Therefore, it's not difficult to draw the conclusion that the operative actions of reveling unjust （这句话应该没写完）
Furthermore, in the example above, if no measures are taken, when King and his men were overbearing（bear这个词用的频次过高，呵呵，suffer更好） the discrimination from the white, just like the only result of an over inflated balloon is blown up, the compromise on the laws containing discrimination will lead to nowhere but radical conflict, which both sides are unwilling to see. Such evidence shows that completely obedience often has the opposite effect of what is expected. （没有说到不妥协会怎么样，如何得出完全的遵从法律会达不到预期的效果呢）     

The second argument has to do with the development of society. When Laws are functioning well, under such regulations society would lead itself reaching the maximum interests. However, the society is an intricate matrix composed of different classes with competing interests.（与上边那段重复了） Not only the interests of each class, but the each class itself never cease varying. To keep laws adequate to such complicated situations, the feedbacks from classes that point out the unjust laws are quite essential. For instance, in the 1980s of China, there's a nationwide rural reform, beginning from （with更好）the introduction of household contract responsibility system（我也不清楚这样的东东老外能不能看明白）; while the genesis of which, is actually the voices from several peasants who regard the former regulations of so-called "every people eat from the same big pot"（意见与上边那个括号内容同） as unjust. When such feedback heard by the government, the adaptation, or to say, the approval of the new system that link the remuneration of peasants directly to the output of the fields, has greatly encouraged the enthusiasm of peasants, leading to tremendous economic achievements. So when we found some laws unjust, making our voices heard is not only for our own benefits; meanwhile, it also plays an active part in the improvement of the society. 这一段我觉得例子不是很好，你写这么多，老外也不一定完全明白，呵呵，其实个人觉得最好不要用中国的例子，尤其是这么有中国特色的，老外可能看不懂，缺乏相关背景的了解。而且，最关键的一点是这一段与上一段有重复，偏离了你拟的提纲，没有论证“是社会修正其规则得以前进的方法”，可能要放大到整个社会层面好点，你的例子具有局限性，仅说明了阶层的利益。

But on the other hand, the measure of feedback that reveals the unjust laws should be restricted in a rational realm.（路德那个例子放这一段挺好的，因为他主张非暴力的改革） No matter what, obedience must be the preconditions. To demonstrate the point, firstly, as the value system and religious beliefs differ from person to person, there can never be a universal consensus on the judgment of laws. Consider，the problem of euthanasia, as an example. Individuals with certain religious beliefs and cultural background may view it as just; while people brought up in a completely different（具体什么不同） environment might consider it as murder. Thus, someone’s just tends to draw an opposite conclusion in others viewpoints. If obedience were not taken as the foundation of our feedback measures, the only result will be that everyone only acts according to his own willingness. If a soldier considers it just to fight, he will shoot; if a millionaire thinks the taxation unjust, he might refuse to pay the tax; if a driver considers the traffic rules useless, he'll probably disobey it. Then the function of laws that provide general regulations to make the society operate smoothly is invalidated, under which circumstances society will go back to anarchism. Therefore, our behaviors should be regulated by even unjust laws before certain adaptations are made.这一段主要写了基于不同的价值观与宗教信仰，难以对公平达成一致，因此抵抗这种方式可能导致社会混乱，法律失去效力。可以再强调一下理性的不阻碍法律正常运行的范围内的方式，就会有画龙点睛之感。否则，通篇你也只说了抵抗不好。   

In sum, without actions of feedback, laws cannot remedy themselves to facilitate the progress of society; without obedience of all the individuals, laws cannot take effect. Hence, faced with unjust laws, it is equally important to obey them and to reveal the unjust part to legislative.
偶像的作文写得真好，我只好抱着鸡蛋里边挑骨头的心态来修改了，呵呵，研究了几篇范文，所以对于修改好像找到了一点感觉，可怜对于写作还是比较木讷，555

[ 本帖最后由 woodman 于 2007-7-31 23:23 编辑 ]

nornsUID：2325187

这是以前未限时精心打造的作品，呵呵～～


分论点
       1 ，法律是表征集体利益的行为准则，公正是个相对概念，当集团利益与其不一致时，即相对不公正时，我们应该想办法使法律制定者获得反馈。
进一步地，如果当不一致的时候不采取行动，会激化矛盾
       2，这种行动本身，也是社会修正其规则得以前进的方法
       3（反面让步）但是我们的反馈手段必须控制在一个理性的不阻碍法律正常运行的范围内



When laws seem unjust to us, should we obey it? Such a controversial issue can raise many different responds. In balance, I believe that when such situations occur, we should reveal the unjust, or make our unwillingness heard by the legislative; but equal importantly, obedience should be the preconditions of such actions.   

For my part, there are two arguments why I emphasize the importance of certain actions when unjust occurs. The first has to do with the benefits of individuals. By balancing the competing interests of different classes, the law is designed to guarantee that the whole society works in a proper way. When some laws are unjust to us, or generally to a certain classes, we are reasonable to suppose, the process of balancing, which is the inherit function of laws, doesn't work so well and our benefits are harmed（偶觉得你这句有点因果颠倒，因为利益受损我们才会觉得不公平的吧 恩这个应该把and our。。harmed去掉，那样就不会造成误会了）. Henceforth, in order for some adequate adaptations, we should take some affirmative means to make our voices heard; otherwise the only result is bearing such unjust for good. Just consider that, while Martine Luther King and his compatriots were deprived of the equal rights as the white people, if he kept silence, can the laws of discrimination be removed? Therefore, it's not difficult to draw the conclusion that the operative actions of reveling unjust （这句话应该没写完）
Furthermore, in the example above, if no measures are taken, when King and his men were overbearing（bear这个词用的频次过高，呵呵，suffer更好） 谢谢the discrimination from the white, just like the only result of an over inflated balloon is blown up, the compromise on the laws containing discrimination will lead to nowhere but radical conflict, which both sides are unwilling to see.（这个你看看是不是不够详细，对应你说的达不到预期的效果） Such evidence shows that completely obedience often has the opposite effect of what is expected. （没有说到不妥协会怎么样，如何得出完全的遵从法律会达不到预期的效果呢）     

The second argument has to do with the development of society. When Laws are functioning well, under such regulations society would lead itself reaching the maximum interests. However, the society is an intricate matrix composed of different classes with competing interests.（与上边那段重复了） 谢谢Not only the interests of each class, but the each class itself never cease varying. To keep laws adequate to such complicated situations, the feedbacks from classes that point out the unjust laws are quite essential. For instance, in the 1980s of China, there's a nationwide rural reform, beginning from （with更好）the introduction of household contract responsibility system（我也不清楚这样的东东老外能不能看明白）; while the genesis of which, is actually the voices from several peasants who regard the former regulations of so-called "every people eat from the same big pot"（意见与上边那个括号内容同） as unjust. When such feedback heard by the government, the adaptation, or to say, the approval of the new system that link the remuneration of peasants directly to the output of the fields, has greatly encouraged the enthusiasm of peasants, leading to tremendous economic achievements. So when we found some laws unjust, making our voices heard is not only for our own benefits; meanwhile, it also plays an active part in the improvement of the society. 这一段我觉得例子不是很好，你写这么多，老外也不一定完全明白，呵呵，其实个人觉得最好不要用中国的例子，尤其是这么有中国特色的，老外可能看不懂，缺乏相关背景的了解。而且，最关键的一点是这一段与上一段有重复，偏离了你拟的提纲，没有论证“是社会修正其规则得以前进的方法”，可能要放大到整个社会层面好点，你的例子具有局限性，仅说明了阶层的利益。

But on the other hand, the measure of feedback that reveals the unjust laws should be restricted in a rational realm.（路德那个例子放这一段挺好的，因为他主张非暴力的改革） （确实如此，你觉得一个例子多角度出现会不会让别人觉得不信服？要我现在就很喜欢这样～）No matter what, obedience must be the preconditions. To demonstrate the point, firstly, as the value system and religious beliefs differ from person to person, there can never be a universal consensus on the judgment of laws. Consider，the problem of euthanasia, as an example. Individuals with certain religious beliefs and cultural background may view it as just; while people brought up in a completely different（具体什么不同） environment might consider it as murder. Thus, someone’s just tends to draw an opposite conclusion in others viewpoints. If obedience were not taken as the foundation of our feedback measures, the only result will be that everyone only acts according to his own willingness. If a soldier considers it just to fight, he will shoot; if a millionaire thinks the taxation unjust, he might refuse to pay the tax; if a driver considers the traffic rules useless, he'll probably disobey it. Then the function of laws that provide general regulations to make the society operate smoothly is invalidated, under which circumstances society will go back to anarchism. Therefore, our behaviors should be regulated by even unjust laws before certain adaptations are made.这一段主要写了基于不同的价值观与宗教信仰，难以对公平达成一致，因此抵抗这种方式可能导致社会混乱，法律失去效力。可以再强调一下理性的不阻碍法律正常运行的范围内的方式，就会有画龙点睛之感。否则，通篇你也只说了抵抗不好。   

In sum, without actions of feedback, laws cannot remedy themselves to facilitate the progress of society; without obedience of all the individuals, laws cannot take effect. Hence, faced with unjust laws, it is equally important to obey them and to reveal the unjust part to legislative.
偶像的作文写得真好，我只好抱着鸡蛋里边挑骨头的心态来修改了，呵呵，研究了几篇范文，所以对于修改好像找到了一点感觉，可怜对于写作还是比较木讷，555

最后你太谦虚了～～

PudingUID：2364107

When laws seem unjust to us, should we obey it? Such a controversial issue can raise many different responds. In balance, I believe that when such situations occur, we should reveal the unjust, or make our unwillingness heard by the legislative; but equal importantly, obedience should be the preconditions of such actions.

For my part, (我觉得这里应该加上一句“法律是表征集体利益的行为准则，公正是个相对概念”或加到最后，不然这一段只体现了action的重要性，没说法律公正是客观的)there are two arguments why I emphasize the importance of certain actions when unjust (injustice) occurs. The first has to do with the benefits of individuals. By balancing the competing interests of different classes, the law is designed to guarantee that the whole society works in a proper way. When some laws are unjust to us, or generally to a certain classes, we are reasonable to suppose, the process of balancing, which is the inherit (inherent)function of laws, doesn't work so well and our benefits are harmed. Henceforth, in order for some adequate adaptations, we should take some affirmative means to make our voices heard; otherwise the only result is bearing such unjust for good. Just consider that, while Martine Luther King and his compatriots were deprived of the equal rights as the white people, if he kept silence, can the laws of discrimination be removed? Therefore, it's not difficult to draw the conclusion that the operative actions of reveling unjust Furthermore, in the example above, if no measures are taken, when King and his men were overbearing the discrimination from the white, just like the only result of an over inflated balloon is blown up, the compromise on the laws containing discrimination will lead to nowhere but radical conflict, which both sides are unwilling to see. Such evidence shows that completely obedience often has the opposite effect of what is expected.

The second argument has to do with the development of society. When Laws are functioning well, under such regulations society would lead itself reaching the maximum interests. However, the society is an intricate matrix composed of different classes with competing interests. Not only the interests of each class, but the each class itself never cease varying. （have the interests of each class, but the each class itself never ceased varying.）To keep laws adequate to such complicated situations, the feedbacks from classes that point out the unjust laws are quite essential. For instance, in the 1980s of China, there's a nationwide rural reform, beginning from the introduction of household contract responsibility system; while the genesis of which, is actually the voices from several peasants who regard the former regulations of so-called "every people eat from the same big pot" as unjust. When such feedback heard by the government, the adaptation, or to say, the approval of the new system that link the remuneration of peasants directly to the output of the fields, has greatly encouraged the enthusiasm of peasants, leading to tremendous economic achievements（例子用得好）. So when we found some laws unjust, making our voices heard is not only for our own benefits; meanwhile, it also plays an active part in the improvement of the society.

But on the other hand, the measure of feedback that reveals the unjust laws should be restricted in a rational realm. No matter what, obedience must be the preconditions. To demonstrate the point, firstly, as the value system and religious beliefs differ from person to person, there can never be a universal consensus on the judgment of laws. Consider，the problem of euthanasia, as an example. Individuals with certain religious beliefs and cultural background may view it as just; while people brought up in a completely different environment might consider it as murder. Thus, someone’s just tends to draw an opposite conclusion in others viewpoints. If obedience were not taken as the foundation of our feedback measures, the only result will be that everyone only acts according to his own willingness. If a soldier considers it just to fight, he will shoot; if a millionaire thinks the taxation unjust, he might refuse to pay the tax; if a driver considers the traffic rules useless, he'll probably disobey it. Then the function of laws that provide general regulations to make the society operate smoothly is invalidated, under which circumstances society will go back to anarchism. Therefore, our behaviors should be regulated by even unjust laws before certain adaptations are made.(有firstly怎么没有secondly???)

In sum, without actions of feedback, laws cannot remedy themselves to facilitate the progress of society; without obedience of all the individuals, laws cannot take effect. Hence, faced with unjust laws, it is equally important to obey them and to reveal the unjust part to legislative.

这个。。。还是水平低啊我

看不出组长那么多错误。。。。。

nbta03UID：2326371

When laws seem unjust to us, should we obey it? Such a controversial issue can raise many different responds. In balance, I believe that when such situations occur, we should reveal the unjust, or make our unwillingness heard by the legislative; but equal importantly, obedience should be the preconditions of such actions.
    For my part, there are two arguments why I emphasize the importance of certain actions when unjust occurs. The first has to do with the benefits of individuals. By balancing the competing interests of different classes, the law is designed to guarantee that the whole society works in a proper way. When some laws are unjust to us, or generally to a certain classes, we are reasonable to suppose, the process of balancing, which is the inherit function of laws, doesn't work so well and our benefits are harmed. Henceforth, in order for some adequate adaptations, we should take some affirmative means to make our voices heard; otherwise the only result is bearing such unjust for good. Just consider that, while Martine Luther King and his compatriots were deprived of the equal rights as the white people, if he kept silence, can the laws of discrimination be removed? Therefore, it's not difficult to draw the conclusion that the operative actions of reveling unjust 这里没有讲完
Furthermore, in the example above, if no measures are taken, when King and his men were overbearing the discrimination from the white, just like the only result of an over inflated balloon is blown up, the compromise on the laws containing discrimination will lead to nowhere but radical conflict, which both sides are unwilling to see. Such evidence shows that completely obedience often has the opposite effect of what is expected.这段似乎薄弱了一些，而且上面两点里你没有把提纲里说得公正是相对的概念讲一下
     The second argument has to do with the development of society. When Laws are functioning well, under such regulations society would lead itself reaching the maximum interests. However, the society is an intricate matrix composed of different classes with competing interests. Not only the interests of each class, but the each class itself never cease varying. To keep laws adequate to such complicated situations, the feedbacks from classes that point out the unjust laws are quite essential. For instance, in the 1980s of China, there's a nationwide rural reform, beginning from the introduction of household contract responsibility system; while the genesis of which, is actually the voices from several peasants who regard the former regulations of so-called "every people eat from the same big pot" as unjust. When such feedback heard by the government, the adaptation, or to say, the approval of the new system that link the remuneration of peasants directly to the output of the fields, has greatly encouraged the enthusiasm of peasants, leading to tremendous economic achievements. So when we found some laws unjust, making our voices heard is not only for our own benefits; meanwhile, it also plays an active part in the improvement of the society. 农村责任田和大锅饭的例子太中国化了，可能老外很难看懂，看来还是要用外国的例子比较好啊
But on the other hand, the measure of feedback that reveals the unjust laws should be restricted in a rational realm. No matter what, obedience must be the preconditions. To demonstrate the point, firstly, as the value system and religious beliefs differ from person to person, there can never be a universal consensus on the judgment of laws. Consider，the problem of euthanasia, as an example. Individuals with certain religious beliefs and cultural background may view it as just; while people brought up in a completely different environment might consider it as murder. Thus, someone’s just tends to draw an opposite conclusion in others viewpoints. If obedience were not taken as the foundation of our feedback measures, the only result will be that everyone only acts according to his own willingness. If a soldier considers it just to fight, he will shoot; if a millionaire thinks the taxation unjust, he might refuse to pay the tax; if a driver considers the traffic rules useless, he'll probably disobey it. Then the function of laws that provide general regulations to make the society operate smoothly is invalidated, under which circumstances society will go back to anarchism. Therefore, our behaviors should be regulated by even unjust laws before certain adaptations are made.正如woodman所说的，只讲了不反抗的不好，没有讲一下理性的行为的好处
    In sum, without actions of feedback, laws cannot remedy themselves to facilitate the progress of society; without obedience of all the individuals, laws cannot take effect. Hence, faced with unjust laws, it is equally important to obey them and to reveal the unjust part to legislative.

[ 本帖最后由 nbta03 于 2007-8-12 22:35 编辑 ]