issue178 改过的高人们能不能进来看下 有feedback(见5 楼) 谢谢啦^_^

nornsUID：2325187

TOPIC: ISSUE178 - "It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds."
WORDS: 653          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-8-8 12:18:00





俺在五楼把顺序再理了一遍 重写了body的前两端  大家看看这回自然了点没有～～～～·见五楼

谢谢哈










  Laws, the basic regulations for the smooth of a society, are playing an undeniable role in keep our society in order and harmony. But as to the question whether it can change what is in people's heart and mind, largely, I agree with the author. It, though there might be any, can not affect much in hearts and mind.

Superficially, it is because the laws are merely regulations enacted by the force of government, no explanation is made. When we want to change someone's opinion, we should first tell them reasons and examples-just as what I am doing now. Consider, a teacher what to tell a student that he should do homework first. She might talk a lot about the importance of study, and then cite examples of someone who was excellent in studies and finally turned out to be successful. However, when it comes to laws our society does not do the same thing. Mostly, they just tell us: not to kill, or you will be punished; not to steal, or you will be prisoned; not to rob, or you will be captured. See? The government need not to provide a reason or example to show us that the laws is needed or things like that. Most of the time we are only told to obey it and the result of being against of it is what we can not afford. In such cases, no reasons and examples, no communication in spirit, not to mention changing one's thought.

If we dig one step further, we would find that almost it is due to be so-from the essence of laws we should not expect that they can change our minds, because they are not intended to. What is the function of a law? A more significant function of it is balance the competing interests. For example, works and bosses might be in contradiction-for bosses want them to work more with less money while works want the opposite. Then laws choose a position in between so that each side make a compromise and agreement is reached. What is the intention of laws? Laws, originated from natural need, commenced when people found it necessary to rule themselves together for maximum benefits. See the common place in its function and intention? Yes initially they need agreement and willingness of people. That is to say, laws are designed according to the thoughts of current society. Laws are not intended to change our mind but to be agree with the basic common will of a society. For supporting examples we need look no further than the controversial issue of abortion. In western countries it is certainly considered immoral and is surely banned by law, while in other countries, such cruel deeds are allowed by laws. Why? Because people in different countries with different cultural and religious background share different views and laws are designed to meet the common will and agreement of the critical mass of a nation. We are not designing laws that enable abortion in western countries to change their mind. So, since it is not intended for change the mind but to agree, it can not make differences in our mind.

But, for supplement, although laws has few to do in changing one's mind, it can, to some extent, facilitate the progress of changes in mind, if such change is on the run. For example, between the civil war, when the northern people and several people in the southern states are calling for  freedom of the African Americans, Lincoln abolished the laws that allow slavery. After wining the war, it was forced into the southern states. Although it might be the truth that people there were not well prepared for such a change. But when it became a fact that black had the equal rights with them, gradually, this force of laws can make them accept the fact better

[ 本帖最后由 norns 于 2007-8-10 01:48 编辑 ]

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

我看了你的觉得蛮好的，限时能写出这样的文章，太无敌了 囧
PS
norns 你觉得这样来写这篇文章会不会偏题，
法律是立法者的意志的反映所以也是人性的反映。不会改变人的nature
但是反过来会对进行指导people nature
然后用分领域写法。
1.不会改变人的nature, EG,autarchy ear .反映人性中的selfish democracy 反映人的freedom,esteem.
2.可以指导人nature， EG ，democracy法律采用惩罚来强化人性中的善良面
IN sum

菲子UID：2311527

首先谢谢你的修改哈，呵呵，现在我要开动了！


TOPIC: ISSUE178 - "It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds."
WORDS: 653          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-8-8 12:18:00

没来得及写完，但是最后一层勉强收完了， 差个结尾。 为了保证真实性，只改了拼写和语法的错误。 欢迎互拍～～～

  Laws, the basic regulations for the smooth of a society, are playing an undeniable role in keep our society in order and harmony. But as to the question whether it can change what is in people's heart and mind, largely, I agree with the author. It, though there might be any, can not affect much in hearts and mind.（我觉得开头除了摆明立场以外，简单说一下你最主要的理由会让看的人更明确你要论证的是什么。呵呵，不过有时候我也觉得这个挺困难的，提个建议啦）

Superficially, it is because the laws are merely regulations enacted by the force of government, no explanation is made.（这句话太武断了吧？政府实施的法律就可以没有任何解释吗？） When we want to change someone's opinion, we should first tell them reasons and examples-just as what I am doing now.（这句话跟文章关系不是太大，而且降低了文章的严肃性，太口语化了） Consider, a teacher what（want） to tell a student that he should do homework first. She might talk a lot about the importance of study, and then cite examples of someone who was excellent in studies and finally turned out to be successful. However, when it comes to laws our society does not do the same thing. Mostly, they just tell us: not to kill, or you will be punished; not to steal, or you will be prisoned; not to rob, or you will be captured. See? The government need not to provide a reason or example to show us that the laws is needed or things like that. Most of the time we are only told to obey it and the result of being against of it is what we can not afford. In such cases, no reasons and examples, no communication in spirit, not to mention changing one's thought.(这个观点有一点独特哦，政府没有告诉理由就不能改变人的思想？用老师和学生的那个例子能够推出政府对普通百姓吗？我觉得这存在逻辑上的问题，根本不可相比。政府制定的法律对于普通百姓来说，多是可以理解的，就算政府不提供解释，每个人自己应该都知道为什么要遵守吧，特别是你所举的杀人，偷盗和抢劫。而学生和老师的关系就不一样了，而且你能说老师举了例子学生的思想就发生改变了吗？)

If we dig one step further, we would find that almost it is due to be so-from the essence of laws we should not expect that they can change our minds, because they are not intended to. （这句话很不错，吸引我看下去）What is the function of a law? A more significant function of it is balance the competing interests.(不知道是不是可以这么表达) For example, works（workers） and bosses might be in contradiction-for bosses want them to work more with less money while works want the opposite. Then laws choose a position in between so that each side make a compromise and agreement is reached. What is the intention of laws? Laws, originated from natural need, commenced when people found it necessary to rule themselves together for maximum benefits. See the common place in its function and intention? Yes initially they need agreement and willingness of people. （感觉太口语化了）That is to say, laws are designed according to the thoughts of current society. Laws are not intended to change our mind but to be agree with the basic common will of a society. （文章没有说laws are not intended to change human's mind，目的如何和实际发挥了什么作用不是一回事。还是逻辑问题。可能法律的目的不在此，但同时发挥了这个作用）For supporting examples we need look no further than the controversial issue of abortion. In western countries it is certainly considered immoral and is surely banned by law, while in other countries, such cruel deeds are allowed by laws. Why? Because people in different countries with different cultural and religious background share different views and laws are designed to meet the common will and agreement of the critical mass of a nation. We are not designing laws that enable abortion in western countries to change their mind. So, since it is not intended for change the mind but to agree, it can not make differences in our mind.

But, for supplement, although laws has few to do in changing one's mind, it can, to some extent, facilitate the progress of changes in mind, if such change is on the run. For example, between the civil war, when the northern people and several people in the southern states are calling for  freedom of the African Americans, Lincoln abolished the laws that allow slavery. After wining the war, it was forced into the southern states. Although it might be the truth that people there were not well prepared for such a change. But when it became a fact that black had the equal rights with them, gradually, this force of laws can make them accept the fact better.(接受了事实是不是说明他们的思想发生了变化？)

我也是个不说好话的哈，  语言有时候太口语化了，文章的逻辑性有待提高，例子也不是太到位， 继续努力啊。

woodmanUID：161906

看完要顶住啊，偶对你每一分点都提了意见，呵呵

Laws, the basic regulations forthe smooth of a society, are playing an undeniable role in keep our society inorder and harmony. But as to the question whether it can change what is inpeople's heart and mind, largely, I agree with the author. It, though theremight be any, can not affect much in hearts and mind.

Superficially, it is because thelaws are merely regulations enacted by the force of government, no explanationis made. When we want to change someone's opinion, we should first tell themreasons and examples-just as what I am doing now. Consider, a teacher what totell a student that he should do homework first（什么情况下家作first，写清楚）. She might talk a lotabout the importance of study, and then cite examples of someone who wasexcellent in studies and finally turned out to be successful. （这个不能说服人要先写家作啊，你只是强调学习重要，然后例举有人学习优秀最终成功了，隔靴搔痒的感觉）However, when it comesto laws our society does not do the same thing. Mostly, they just tell us: notto kill, or you will be punished; not to steal, or you will be prisoned; not torob, or you will be captured. See? The government need not to provide a reasonor example to show us that the laws is needed or things like that. Most of thetime we are only told to obey it and the result of being against of it is whatwe can not afford. In such cases, no reasons and examples, no communication inspirit, not to mention changing one's thought.法律大多是可以体现大多数民众意愿的，比如维护治安，惩恶扬善什么的，只有对少数——犯罪的人是有点无情的。这一段的观点值得商榷啊。你的意思是强制不能改变思想，而不强制就可以改变了。有什么依据呢？而且那个教师真的改变学生的思想了吗？不见得吧

If we dig one step further, wewould find that almost it is due to be so-from the essence of laws we shouldnot expect that they can change our minds, because they are not intended to.What is the function of a law? A more significant function of it is balance thecompeting interests. For example, works and bosses might be incontradiction-for bosses want them to work more with less money while workswant the opposite. Then laws choose a position inbetween（两介词不能连用） so that each side make a compromise and agreement isreached. （没有过度）What is the intention of laws? Laws, originated from natural need（具体是虾米？）, commenced whenpeople found it necessary to rule themselves together for maximum benefits. Seethe common place in its function and intention? （写功能与目的是为了说明什么？如果只是为了说明法律本意不是改变人的想法，那就单写目的好了）Yes initially theyneed agreement and willingness of people. That is to say, laws are designedaccording to the thoughts of current society. Laws are not intended to changeour mind but to be agree with the basic common will of a society. Forsupporting examples we need look no further than the controversial issue ofabortion. In western countries it is certainly considered immoral and is surelybanned by law,（不是所有西方国家都禁止堕胎的，这个有争议） while in other countries, suchcruel deeds are allowed by laws. Why? Because people in different countrieswith different cultural and religious background share different views and lawsare designed to meet the common will and agreement of the critical mass of anation.（这个例子写得好长，没有很好的证明法律与民众意愿一致。） We are not designing laws thatenable abortion in western countries to change their mind. So, since it is notintended for change the mind but to agree, it can not make differences in ourmind.这一段把我彻底看晕了，呵呵，很杂乱的感觉
个人认为如果你不是对法律有一定认识，不要轻易的搬出什么目的之类带有本质味道的东西，因为写得不好会比较难看，成为很大的失误。法律的目的到底是什么，你可以去查证一下。那个例子本身有争议，不要用有争议的例子去代表你的一个很确定的立场。

But, for supplement, althoughlaws has few to do in changing one's mind, it can, to some extent, facilitatethe progress of changes in mind, if such change is on the run. For example,between the civil war, when the northern people and several people in thesouthern states are calling for  freedom of the African Americans, Lincoln abolished thelaws that allow slavery. After wining the war, it （指什么？）was forced into thesouthern states. Although it might be the truth that people there were not wellprepared for such a change. But when it became a fact that black had the equalrights with them, gradually, this force of laws can make them accept the factbetter这一段问题也很大啊，好混乱的逻辑，你想表达法律有助于思想的改变（你没有说明为什么可以有助于此！），而你举的例子是法律迫使人们接受一个既成事实，而这个事实是法律带来的，接受事实就意味着改变想法了吗？~~~好乱的例子啊

偶觉得你这篇真的逻辑比较混乱了，表受打击啊，不要刻意追求字数了，一段说一个事情，说清楚就ok了。

[ 本帖最后由 woodman 于 2007-8-9 15:44 编辑 ]

nornsUID：2325187

唉  还是蛮沮丧的  第一次想严格按照三段论来。。结果

想了一下    把body2放在前面； 用body1 补充做让步逻辑性更好  再重写了一部分（蓝色）

这是新的提纲（只有两段body的） 给点意见吧， 谢谢了啊～～^_^

body1  法律的特性决定其无法影响思维
   1大前提： 改变思维的大前提是二者有思维上的区别
   2小前提:  法律是根据思维走的 法律的目的是稳固－》符合大众－》和大众的思想一致
               小结论 法律和大众的思维是一致的
   3结论： 大多数情况法律无法改变思维（因为二者是一致的）

body2   即使少数情况下， 它也很难改变思维            
           大前提 ： 影响人的思维需要 reasoning and communication 使人信服 （老师和学生的例子证明前提）
           小前提 ： 法律不提供这些     
           结论 ： 法律无法改变思维（因为法律的颁布一般没有很详细的说明和使某些人信服）



Transcendently, from the nature of the law, it can not change our minds. Firstly, when we talk about changing one's mind, there is a hidden premise, that is your opinion should be different with the one you want to persuasive. If you two are holding the same idea, then there is no need for persuasding, let alone changing the mind. Secondly, let us see whether the laws can meet the premise, to get this answer we should look at characters of laws. One of its function is to stablize the society by several regulations. Then how are these regulations come about? Initially, it is the agreement of the majority of a society on the rules of our behavior. For example, we all think killing imoral, then the banning of killing is written in the code.That is to say most of the time the rules of laws are what the majority of a nation consider as just. Obviously if these regulations are against the willingness of the critical mass, it can not function and will recieve great resistance.In nowadays, laws are most accord with our value systems. We value highly of credit, then laws punish discredit. We lay emphsis on education, then laws are enacted to guarantee that  our children are well educated. We believe that everyone is born equal, then the right of freedom is written in the Constitution. Laws , for the purpose of stablize the society, are intended to keep pace with the willingness of the nation. In conclusion, most of the time, laws are agree with the people's will, so there is no where for laws to change people's mind.


Some detractors might argue that not all the laws are agree with all the people. There must be some laws againts one's mind. I concede this is true, however, even if sometimes laws are disagree with certain people, they are still more probably to contribute little to the change in one's mind. First let us recall what is needed in changing one's mind. When we want to change someone's opinion, we should first tell them reasons and examples, you should make convincible reasons that your position is much better than his-just as what I am doing now. Consider, when a teacher want to talk his readers into believing something. He might probably use reasoning and cite necessary evidences.That is to say, reasoning and evidences, or at least you should make some effor if you want to change someonek's mind.（大前提证完了，开始证小前提） Second， let us see whether the laws can meed these requisitives. During the process of the laws are implemented, relatively rare effert is made on changing one's minds, they just tell you that you should do what and not to do what, no explanations and no evidences why we should do so.(for example) Mostly, they just tell us: notto kill, or you will be punished; not to steal, or you will be prisoned; not torob, or you will be captured. See? The government need not to provide a reasonor example to show us that the laws is needed or things like that. Most of thetime we are only told to obey it and the result of being against of it is whatwe can not afford. (论据和小前提部分完毕，出结论）Therefore, most of the time In such cases, no reasons and examples, no communication inspirit, not to mention changing one's thought.

[ 本帖最后由 norns 于 2007-8-10 01:50 编辑 ]

nornsUID：2325187

改过的高人来看看吧～～～ 谢谢了

nornsUID：2325187

up

joyceningUID：2314914

Laws, the basic regulations for the smooth of a society(??), are playing an undeniable role in keep our society in order and harmony. But as to the question whether it can change what is in people's heart and mind, largely, I agree with the author. It, though there might be any, can not affect much in hearts and mind.

Superficially, it is because the laws are merely regulations enacted by the force of government, no explanation is made. When we want to change someone's opinion, we should first tell them reasons and examples-just as what I am doing now. Consider, a teacher what to tell a student that he should do homework first. She might talk a lot about the importance of study, and then cite examples of someone who was excellent in studies and finally turned out to be successful. However, when it comes to laws our society does not do the same thing. Mostly, they just tell us: not to kill, or you will be punished; not to steal, or you will be prisoned; not to rob, or you will be captured. See? The government need not to provide a reason or example to show us that the laws is needed or things like that. Most of the time we are only told to obey it and the result of being against of it is what we can not afford. In such cases, no reasons and examples, no communication in spirit, not to mention changing one's thought.(我觉得这个论述的很奇怪，似乎法律不应该从这个角度来说，你说的那些例子并不会引起什么人们思想和法律规定上的冲突)

If we dig one step further, we would find that almost it is due to be so-from the essence of laws we should not expect that they can change our minds, because they are not intended to. What is the function of a law? A more significant function of it is balance the competing interests. For example, works and bosses might be in contradiction-for bosses want them to work more with less money while works want the opposite. Then laws choose a position in between so that each side make a compromise and agreement is reached. What is the intention of laws? Laws, originated from natural need, commenced when people found it necessary to rule themselves together for maximum benefits. See the common place in its function and intention? Yes initially they need agreement and willingness of people. That is to say, laws are designed according to the thoughts of current society. Laws are not intended to change our mind but to be agree with the basic common will of a society. For supporting examples we need look no further than the controversial issue of abortion. In western countries it is certainly considered immoral and is surely banned by law, while in other countries, such cruel deeds are allowed by laws. Why? Because people in different countries with different cultural and religious background share different views and laws are designed to meet the common will and agreement of the critical mass of a nation. We are not designing laws that enable abortion in western countries to change their mind. So, since it is not intended for change the mind but to agree, it can not make differences in our mind.（这段说法律制定的目的不是为了要改变人们的思想，不过，题目没涉及这点，只是说能不能，有点偏了）

But, for supplement, although laws has few to do in changing one's mind, it can, to some extent, facilitate the progress of changes in mind, if such change is on the run. For example, between the civil war, when the northern people and several people in the southern states are calling for  freedom of the African Americans, Lincoln abolished the laws that allow slavery. After wining the war, it was forced into the southern states. Although it might be the truth that people there were not well prepared for such a change. But when it became a fact that black had the equal rights with them, gradually, this force of laws can make them accept the fact better

我的水平有限拉，总体觉得有点偏了 题目三个句子，应该每一段陈述已对每一个分句的观点，可能会更清晰一点

qinqin518UID：2111221

顶一下，等我写完再来看具体分析

nornsUID：2325187

up

lucialuckyUID：2347401

总的来说很不错
新事件写到，好牛了

woodmanUID：161906

上一次把你拍狠了，道歉先，呵呵，不过每次我都是很诚恳的哦。重新看了一下你的文，意见如下：

首先从审题来看，题目包含三个方面：1. 通过法律可以控制或者限制人们的行为，2.立法是无法改变人类本性的，3.法律无法改变人们的思想。But是个重要的词，but后面的部分权重要大。但是前面2点也是要写的，你的文章好像只写了第3点，所以论述是不全面的。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
其次，单从第3点的论证来看，依据你的思路：
你的body1. 法律的特性决定其无法影响思维，法律是根据思维走的法律的目的是稳固－》符合大众－》和大众的思想一致。
--------------------
我的意见：你这个说法有待纠正，法律的本质是统治阶级维护其统治的工具之一，所以在不同国家它的面目是不同的，在民主国家，法律大多数情况下能体现民众意愿，但是在一个专制国家，法律是血腥镇压人民的工具。所以，你要换个口气去写比较好，不要说法律的特性是与民众一致的，这样很偏激，有失一个客观全面的立场。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
你的body2. 即使少数情况下，它也很难改变思维。法律无法改变思维（因为法律的颁布一般没有很详细的说明和使某些人信服）
---------------------
我的意见：这一点你完全从外因的角度来说的，所以信服力不足。你可以再写写内因，思想是客观存在反映在人的意识中经过思维活动而产生的结果，它的形成糅合了价值观、人生观等诸多因素，是一种认知的沉淀，它是一种比较稳定的东西。

希望我的意见对你有所帮助。有什么问题继续讨论哦。我先写提纲去了，困的不行了，眼皮打架，呵呵。


[ 本帖最后由 woodman 于 2007-8-11 01:49 编辑 ]

nornsUID：2325187

确实啊； 谢谢   恩 是的 内因 没有考虑到； 仔细看了看题目 确实出了偏差～～


谢谢·； 你的意见每次都很中肯   可是就要上考场了 唉。。