Issue17 0806G加速度小组第二次作业

nun318UID: 2205752

The author simply divides laws into two types: just and unjust, and claims that it is more important that people have responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws compared to obey just laws. However, everyone does not obey laws which one thinks it is unjust, our society will disorder and chaos. For maintaining a peaceful, orderly, relatively stable society, people should unquestionably obey laws.

Admittedly, there are some laws indeed are not fair even ridiculous in human’s history, such as some serious religious laws in ancient Europe and American slavery laws. These laws deny the principal rule of laws that everyone is created equal. For protecting one’s own rights, individuals had no choice besides disobeyed and resisted those laws in that special period without light. At the same time, those people who violate laws always pay enormous values even their lives. However, as the development of society, present laws system is perfected increasingly in this enlightened age and we have no need to challenge laws and pay for this significant value.

Firstly, there is not a universal standard to judge a law is just or not, at least the author does not points it out in this statement. It is difficult to make all laws to satisfy everyone’s desire, especially ones in different class in the society, because different classes have distinguished values and background. Even in the same class, people always have disagreements and conflicts, so laws cannot be absolutely just or unjust. People cannot violate laws according to individual’s judgment.  If everyone can violate law just for one reason that he or she thinks it is unjust, our society will lose its order, and it is finally have a negative effect on this society as a whole.

Secondly, laws’ authority is not easy to be challenged. Unlike other rules such as morality in our society, laws are enforced by the courts; if you break a law-whether it is just or not-you may pay a fine, pay damages, or go to prison. In another word, you must pay a value if you violate a law. For individuals, they always cannot afford this value, so it might not be a reasonable decision to break a law. In the end, individuals who go against laws would be losers. Some people claims that there are so many people who win this war and become heroes in the history. However, they become heroes because they establish new laws but break old laws. There is totally different between violating laws and revolution.

Finally, even the best intentions, laws are sometimes created that people later recognize as being unjust or unfair. In our democratic and legal society, people gain more and more rights, including to speak out publicly and to seek to change the law by lawful means when they find some laws are flawed. Instead of violating laws, we completely apply some legal approaches to alter or abolish those unjust laws.

To sum up, every member in society has the responsibility to conform for laws rather than disobey laws. Even for those unjust laws, we also adopt legal approaches to alter or abolish them rather than illegal way-breaking laws.
                                                                     

loogloogUID: 2447845

"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."<br />
<br />
It is clear for us that to disobey and resist unjust law need more courage than to obey just ones. From my viewpoint, although the former would not be suitable for everyone, we must try best to protect and encourage ones who choose the former. On balance, obeying just law is the basic of the society, which is more important for the whole society, special in politics, education and economics.<br />
<br />
To begin with, the just laws can prevent from bribe in the government, if officers obey to the just law. As we all known, the just laws about the function of the office is clearly defined through the long historic river from nearly two hundred years ago. And in the most academic countries, the laws operate well and the results are also obvious when comparing to Iraq and Iran etc. Without this laws and obeying to the laws by themselves, I cannot imagine where my country can be lead to. It is entirely possible that the peaceful period is disturbed by the wars, which causes unemployment, death, poor. Nowadays, when we notice Iraq under the colored glasses, we cannot turn up that twenty years ago, it is filled with peace and happy. And the main course of the distinct condition before and now is that whether the leaders obey to the just politic laws. After all, the laws can astrict the leader in a correct ways and in a suitable position.<br />
<br />
When we change our eyesight from politics to education, the surprised similar condition can be observed. Although America is one of the most successful countries in encouraging citizen to enjoin the schools, colleges and university, since more than seventy percent of the best graduate schools are in Unite States. However, ones graduating from Stanford and Harvard universities are the rich. At the same time the poor can only take into the poor university according to the recent report from a magazine. The laws about the right that everyone owns the same right to obtain the same education are being breaking, even leading to a serious level. And that report also tells that the crime and the education are closed correlation--the crime rate arises as the unequal education cases happened more and more. Thus, obeying to the just laws of education is not only relative to oneself but also closed to the safety of the society.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the just law is the essence of the health of the economics to protect the developments. The 1998 Asia economics Crisis will be the alarm to those who break or disobey the laws. And a expert analyzed that the crisis reflected on the violation of the just prescribe. If every obeys to the laws in the common live of economics, the crisis should not be created. To ensure the development of the economics, basic laws should be hewed to.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is our responsibility to protect and arouse those disobeying and resisting unjust laws, since the unjust laws spur the civil citizen to  challenge the just laws. For instance, if one is hit by the unjust laws for many times, perhaps, he cannot help to distrust the just laws. Furthermore, he disobeys and resists the just ones considering the unjust existence.<br />
<br />
To sum up, obeying the just laws will be important to the common lives. Yet, disobeying and resisting the unjust laws is for the sake of encouraging more to obey it. From this aspect, they are leading to the target that obeying the just laws.

[ 本帖最后由 loogloog 于 2008-1-18 19:02 编辑 ]

loogloogUID: 2447845

gai 在星星上幻想)


The author simply divides laws into two types: just and unjust(justice and non-justice), and claims that it is more important that people have(a) responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws compared(comparing) to obey just laws. However, (if) everyone does not obey laws which one thinks it is unjust, our society will (be)disorder and chaos. For maintaining a peaceful, orderly, relatively stable society, people should unquestionably obey laws.

Admittedly, there are some laws indeed are not fair even ridiculous in human’s history, such as some serious religious laws in ancient Europe and American slavery laws. These laws deny the principal rule of laws that everyone is created equal. For protecting one’s own rights, individuals had no choice besides disobeyed and resisted those laws in that special period without light. At the same time, those people who violate laws always pay enormous values even their lives. However, as the development of society, present laws system is perfected increasingly in this enlightened age and we have no need to challenge laws and pay for this significant value.（这句话，我觉得太绝对罗，写得委婉写才好。 However, as the development of society, present laws system is just as a whole, it is more urgent for us to perfect it than to disobey or resist it.  ）

Firstly, there is not a universal standard to judge a law (is just or not删除), at least the author does not points it out in this statement. It is difficult to make all laws to（删除to） satisfy everyone’s desire, especially ones in different class（classes） in the society, because different classes have distinguished values and background. Even in the same class, people always have disagreements and conflicts, so laws cannot be absolutely just or unjust. People cannot violate laws according to individual’s judgment.  If everyone can violate law just for one reason that he or she thinks it is unjust, our society will lose its order, and it is(删除is) finally have a negative effect on this society as a whole. (你说law没有just and unjust,我觉得不如说laws是存在局限性，in the viewpoint of capitalist, the high individual income tax will be unjust, while it is helpful for class of worker. Yet, the “unjust law” is to make the society peaceful and equity.)

Secondly, laws’ authority is not easy to be challenged. Unlike other rules such as morality in our society, laws are enforced by the courts; if you break a law-whether it is just or not-you may pay a fine, pay damages, or go to prison. In another word, you must pay a value if you violate a law. For individuals, they always cannot afford this value, so it might not be a reasonable decision to break a law. (我觉得，这段的意思好像要我们知难而退的感觉，这样写，不太好。)In the end（为了避免与下面finally冲突，用In short）, individuals who go against laws would be losers. Some people claims that there are so many people who win this war and become heroes in the history. However, they become heroes because they establish new laws but break old laws. There is totally different between violating laws and revolution. （revolution 好像意思是 打破旧的创造新的？？）

Finally, even （with）the best intentions, laws are sometimes created that people later recognize as being unjust or unfair. In our democratic and legal society, people gain more and more rights, including (删掉to)to speak（ing） out publicly and to（删掉） seek（ing） to change（challenge） the law by lawful means when they find some laws are flawed. Instead of violating laws, we completely apply some legal approaches to alter or abolish those unjust laws.

To sum up, every member in society has the responsibility to conform for laws rather than disobey laws. Even for those unjust laws, we also adopt legal approaches to alter or abolish them rather than illegal way-breaking laws.
分析：第三段似乎有些不妥，写得太negative啦。

雪梦无痕UID: 2447732

According to the statement, every person in the society has a responsibility to obey just laws and more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws. I would agree with it that we should obey just laws and resist unjust laws on the presumption that just laws and unjust laws are correctly clarified.

First of all, we have to make a criterion of clarifying laws. Which one is just and which one is unjust? Admittedly, it is really hard to say. As the famous saying goes: there are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people’s eyes. It is also true that there are one thousand different just laws in one thousand different people's hearts. Just and unjust varies from nation to nation and from person to person. For instance, abortion is illegal in Western countries; however, it is protected by the laws in China as a result of the cultural differences. Let's get down to the fundamentals and accept that laws which are impetus to the development of human beings and laws which keep the society peaceful and stable are the so called "just laws". Laws that are obstacles for the development of humans are the so called "unjust laws".

Undoubtedly, every citizen should obey just laws, which keep the society in order and move stably. Anyone who disobeys the just laws such as murdering and cheating should be punished by the court otherwise the world will be in chaos much the way when you play games you have to obey the rules of the games. In a democratic society, we have do many rights to do many things we are interested in, on the other hand, we also have some obligations----obey the laws, at least the just laws, which is the condense of justice.

Yet it is more important for individuals to resist unjust laws, by doing so, we will help to improve the legal system of a nation. There are numerous of examples in history. For instance, several decades ago in the US, black people are discriminated in every aspects of life by the white. It is legal according to the laws in many states, then a black hero stands out, his name is Martin Luther King Jr, with the famous speech "I have a dreams", he lighted a candle for the blacks who were still in darkness then, although he died without seeing the cancel of racial discrimination all over the country, by resisting the unjust jaws, he really did make a difference. Another example is Abraham Lincoln, one of the presidents of the United States, who abolished the laws about the slaves at his time, although it eventually caused the Civil War, there is no doubt that it did give America a big jump on its foreign rivals.

Certainly it is very hard to tell from just laws and unjust laws, however, under the criteria mentioned above, and with the belief that----truth sometimes is not in the hands of the majority in mind, stand out for the unjust laws bravely, we could try our best to make it a harmony world and it is what you are doing that really makes a difference.

雪梦无痕UID: 2447732

占座，改loogloog的
"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."<br />
<br />
It is clear for us that to disobey and resist unjust law need more courage than to obey just ones. From my viewpoint, although the former would not be suitable for everyone, we must try (our) best to protect and encourage ones who choose the former. On balance, obeying just law is the basic of the society, which is more important for the whole society, special (especially) in politics, education and economics.<br />
<br />
To begin with, the just laws can prevent from(prevent something, prevent sb,sth from sth,这里from去掉) bribe(bribing) in the government, if officers obey to(to去掉) the just law. As we all known, the just laws about the function of the office（是不是想表达政府的意思？用government） is clearly defined through the long historic river from nearly two hundred years ago. （ the function of the government is clearly defined in the just laws  nearly two hundred years ago where the long historic river starts.）And in the(the去掉) most academic countries（academic countries什么意思？）, the laws operate well and the results are also obvious when comparing to Iraq and Iran etc. Without this laws and obeying to the laws by themselves, I cannot imagine where my country can be lead to. It is entirely possible that the peaceful period is disturbed by the wars, which causes unemployment, death, poor. Nowadays, when we notice Iraq under the colored glasses, we cannot turn up that twenty years ago, it is filled with peace and happy. And the main course of the distinct condition before and now is that whether the leaders obey to the just politic laws. After all, the laws can astrict the leader in a correct ways and in a suitable position.<br />
<br />
When we change（换成turn怎么样） our eyesight from politics to education, the surprised （surprising）similar condition can be observed. Although America is one of the most successful countries in encouraging citizen to enjoin the schools, colleges and university, since more than seventy percent of the best graduate schools are in Unite States. However, ones graduating （？什么意思啊）from Stanford and Harvard universities are the rich. At the same time the poor can only take into(换成enter试试) the poor university according to the recent report from a magazine. The laws about the right that everyone owns the same right to obtain the same education are being breaking（being breaking 换成 broken）, even leading to a serious level. And that report also tells that the crime and the education are closed correlation--the crime rate arises as the unequal education cases happened（建议换成becomes） more and more. Thus, obeying to the just laws of education is not only relative to oneself but also closed（close） to the safety of the society.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, the just law is the essence of the health of the economics to protect the developments. The 1998 Asia economics Crisis will be（已经发生过了，应该用过去时） the alarm to those who break or disobey the laws. And a expert analyzed that the crisis reflected on the violation of the just prescribe. If every obeys to the laws in the common live of economics, the crisis should not be created. To ensure the development of the economics, basic laws should be hewed to.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, it is our responsibility to protect and arouse those disobeying and resisting unjust laws, since the unjust laws spur the civil citizen to  challenge the just laws. For instance, if one is hit by the unjust laws for many times, perhaps, he cannot help to distrust the just laws. Furthermore, he disobeys and resists the just ones considering the unjust existence.<br />
<br />
To sum up, obeying the just laws will be important to the common lives. Yet, disobeying and resisting the unjust laws is for the sake of encouraging more to obey it. From this aspect, they are leading to the target that obeying the just laws.

文章从3方面说just laws，挺好的，但感觉关于unjust 的部分有些单薄，还是赞一个

[ 本帖最后由 雪梦无痕 于 2008-1-18 21:22 编辑 ]

jerome_huUID: 2407996

站座，改楼上

According to the statement, every person in thesociety has a responsibility to obey just laws and more importantly, to disobeyand resist unjust laws. I would agree with it [that we should obey just laws andresist unjust laws on the 去掉] with presumptionthat just laws and unjust laws are correctly clarified.First of all, we have to makea criterion of clarifying laws. Which one is just and which one is unjust?Admittedly,it is really hard to say.[firstly, although hard but important, we have to make acriterion to clarify the just and unjust of law.比较紧凑]As the famous saying goes:there are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people’s eyes. It is also true thatthere are one thousand different just laws in one thousand different people'shearts. Just and unjust varies from nation to nation and from person to person.For instance, abortion is illegal in Western countries; however, it isprotected by the laws in China as a result of the cultural differences. Let'sget down to the fundamentals and accept that laws which are impetus to thedevelopment of human beings and laws which keep the society peaceful and stableare the so called "just laws". Laws that are obstacles for thedevelopment of humans are the so called "unjust laws".Undoubtedly, every citizenshould obey just laws, which keep the society in order and move stably. Anyonewhodisobeys the just laws[换种说法变换一下，commits a felony] such as murdering and cheating should be punished bythe court otherwise the world will be in chaos much the way when you play gamesyou have to obey the rules of the games.[much the way可以这样对比么？我不知道。我写的,paralleling to you have to obey the rules in the game]   In a democratic society, we have domany rights to do many things we are interested in,中式英语 citizens are free from things they interested in on the other hand, we also have someobligations----obey the laws, at least the just laws, which is the condense ofjustice.Yet it is more important forindividuals to resist unjust laws, by doing so, we will help to improve thelegal system of a nation. There are numerous of examples in history. Forinstance, several decades ago in the US, black people are discriminated inevery aspects of life by the white. It is legal according to the laws in manystates, then a black hero stands out, his name is Martin Luther King Jr, withthe famous speech "I have a dreams", he lighted a candle for theblacks who were still in darkness then, although he died without seeing thecancel of racial discrimination all over the country, by resisting the unjustjaws, he really did make a difference. Another example is Abraham Lincoln, oneof the presidents of the United States, who abolished the laws about the slavesat his time, although it eventually caused the Civil War, there is no doubtthat it did give America a big jump on its foreign rivals.Certainly it is very hard totell from/differjust laws and unjust laws, however, under the criteria mentioned above, andwith the belief that----truth sometimes is not in the hands of the majority[ inmind去掉], stand out for/ challenging 这里要用非谓语the unjust laws bravely, we could try our best to makeit a harmony world and it is what you are doing that really makes adifference.[建议不要喊口号，冷静] 和谐世界harmonious world

[ 本帖最后由 jerome_hu 于 2008-1-18 20:59 编辑 ]

jerome_huUID: 2407996

自己的， 有点偏题的样子 ，不过这个比较有意思

The argument that in the society that people should obey justify law and challenge unjust law is relatively sound, while more issues should be concerned to evaluate term ‘time’, to encourage unjust law challenge , because of our intricate law system and possible amplified consequences
We know that only child will distinguish people by just and unjust hastily. Compared to our more complicated society, definition of just varies with time, patriotism, moral standards, or can be simply twisted by an arbitrary leader. It was a response to a twisted justice that 6 millions of jaws were slaughtered within Hitler’s racism testimony, which surprisingly being wildly accepted by German civilians as justice. We have suffered a lot when justice is abused within the wrong way .In this respect, inculcating people with proper value system is more important than compelling them to draw a quick conclusion.
  If you are inclined to agree with this debate might seem like the further mechanism, that national government should replace guilty conviction with presumption of innocence, so that more time are given to encourage a challenge and mend to our common law and constitution. And I believe a great improvement will be made upon this change, especially contributing to our criterion of just and unjust. And that is a supplement criterion to author’s opinion.   
Firstly, think about the incentive mechanism to people deny the unjust law. Law is broken, the national government investigates, individuals are involved-disregard their social status- are protected and, if they are justified, set free. Civilians earned fame and were compensated to encourage others. That is the way it is supposed to work under our system of government.
What’s more, the replacement presumption of innocence provides civilian time before polices conduct an investigation, and to deter a quick arrest before he/she is committed a felony by the unjust law. The change is important because of time-lag effect our attorney system. One paradigmatic modern example is about Chinese Cultural Reform. Well educated professors are committed to serious felony, to topple socialism with knowledge learned from western culture, and were considered betraying traditional culture of China. Time will tell whether these professors involved in the toppling activity or not, while in contrast a lot of knowledge is reserved and protected in their deeds to the disobey and resist unjust law, using which our culture and knowledge developed after the reform. In the value system aspect, they also serve as example to people with rational thoughts, who did not take part in against productivity activities in our nation.  Paralleling to this, a well illustrated example in Physics serves as boarder evidence that achievement can stem from uncertainty. Namely, Quantum Mechanics is developed fundamentally from an unsustained theory - Particle and Wave Interpretations of Light.
  In sum, I would be deeply inspired by those who challenge unjust laws to serve public welfares. The challenge process, once it established, will give us a more equal and civilized society.

xiayanshadowUID: 2374500

According to the title statement, each individual has the responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. While I agree that everyone should obey just laws, which can ensure the stability of our legal system, I also prefer to think that we sometimes should also obey the unjust laws instead of always resist them.

On the one hand, obeying just laws helps our society to stable our legal system. For instance,  laws about the safety of citizens’ lives. Each person should obey this law, or else the society will be in a mess because people do harm to each other and therefore the world becomes horrible for the reason that no one is security is ensured.

On the other hand, obeying unjust laws also can keep our society stable. Consider, for example, the maximum rent regulation, which limits the highest price of renting houses. Because of the law, owners of the houses can not charge too much. As a result, the house renters may suffer a great loss and they certainly will think this law as something unjust. Nevertheless, citizens who have low income, such as students, will benefit from this law and they regard the law as just. In short, whether laws are just or unjust depends on each one’s personal interest. As a consequence, if house renters obey the law of maximum rent regulation, although their condition may become worse, citizens like students who need houses will benefit from it. The existence of the law tends to balance the loss of the house renters and the benefit of the borrowers, and obeyance towards the law makes the law itself to function well.

Furthermore, disobeying unjust laws does not always serve its original purposes of improving citizen’s quality of life and their civil rights. Returning to the maximum rent regulation example mentioned above, if every one of the house-owners resist this law, citizens of low income will suffer and they may spend more money on house renting. Therefore, students will have less money to do other helpful things such as buying books, which, in the long run, may cause the educantion level of our countries to come down to some degree. What’s more, as the price of house renting increases, demands of the houses will decreases. As a result, although some house renters want to rent their houses, no one are willing to offer the high price they charge, therefore the renters themselves will suffer too. So resisting the unjust laws does not serve its original purposes, and on the contrary makes people’s condition worse.

In sum, obeying just laws is everyone’s responsibility, but when it comes to disobeying and resisting unjust laws, it is not necessarily the case. As far as I see, whether a law is just and unjust depends on each person’s value systems and interest. What each citizen should do is to think critically and frequently about our legal system instead of resisting the unjust laws only in order to improve the condition of himself.

tainyUID: 2390008

The speaker's assertion is actually twofold (1) Laws could be divided into categories, just and unjust. (2) Each person should obey just laws; even more importantly, we should disobey and resist unjust ones. I find this assertion problematic in that speaker unfairly assumes that an individual could judge the equity of laws; as a result, the speaker's suggestion might defeat its own purpose.

  First of all, the speaker begs the question by asserting that every individual could decide a law just or unjust. When it is relegated to an individual to judge whether a law is just or unjust, it is quite probably that he or she will judge a law based on his or her own interest, culture or status, etc. In these cases, the fairness of a law is very different for different people. Take the controversial issue of clone for example. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tent to view laws allowing cloning person as unjust, while individuals with other beliefs might view such law as just. As a result, if any action of disobeying so-called unjust laws from his or her perspective, the whole society would undoubtedly come into chaos, owing to that every may consider some laws as unjust ones according to his or her own criterion.

  The second fundamental problem with the statement is that, laws, no matter just or unjust, must be obeyed by all the individuals in the society. Admittedly, since it is difficult for a legislator to take every situation into account, unjustness sometimes is unavoidable. Moreover, some special laws are designed for special groups in the society, for instance, the social security for the old and the handicapped. It is somewhat "unjust" because it stipulates that the old and the handicapped could gain without pain. Such laws are designed to protect the social vulnerable groups. Surely, it is unfair for normal people who had to work hard and then he or she can gain the pension when retired.  However, could anyone regard it real unjustness concerning morality and then to disobey them?

  In my view, the correct attitude toward the flaws of established laws is to reflect them to the legislators through proper ways. Only in this mild way could social regulations be improved appropriately and we maintain our right to the most and without imprudence. The famous example is Martin Luther King's Campaign of Civil Rights for Black in the United States. Otherwise, it could do our society great disservice, as could be aptly illustrated by 1992 Los Angeles Riots.

  In sum, people with different priorities, interests, religious, culture, or status will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws with each other for that the chief function of the law is to strike a balance among competing interests. Therefore, we should check and modify certain laws in a correct and effective way. However, the speaker suggests an extreme and very dangerous one that might defeat its own purpose.

[ 本帖最后由 tainy 于 2008-1-18 21:00 编辑 ]

xiayanshadowUID: 2374500

The argument that in the society that people should obey justify（爲什麽是justify？） law(改成laws，和題目統一一下吧) and challenge unjust law is relatively sound, while more issues should be concerned to evaluate （the） term ‘time’, to encourage unjust law challenge , because of our intricate law system and possible amplified consequences

We know that only (a) child(或者用children) will distinguish people by just and unjust hastily. Compared to our more complicated society, definition of just varies with time, patriotism, moral standards, or can be simply twisted by an arbitrary leader. It was a response to a twisted justice that 6 millions of jaws were slaughtered within Hitler’s racism testimony, which surprisingly being wildly accepted by German civilians as justice. We have suffered a lot when justice is abused within the wrong way .In this respect, inculcating people with proper value system is more important than compelling them to draw a quick conclusion.

  If you are inclined to agree with this debate might seem like the further mechanism(这句话怎么有两个主语？), that national government should replace guilty conviction with presumption of innocence, so that more time are given to encourage a challenge and mend to our common law and constitution. And I believe a great improvement will be made upon this change, especially contributing to our criterion of just and unjust. And that is a supplement criterion to author’s opinion.   

Firstly,（这个~。~！感觉有点儿混乱写到这一段了突然出来一个firstly。。。） think about the incentive mechanism to people deny the unjust law（这句话有两个谓语动词了，think, deny，deny the unjust law应该是修饰people的吧？那就改成denying）. Law is broken, the national government investigates, individuals are involved-disregard their social status- are protected(一句话里好多谓语动词啊~。~！反应不过来是什么意思了，多用一些从句吧，不然不是太清楚表达的是什么意思。逗号左右如果分别是两句话那一定需要连词) and, if they are justified, set free. Civilians earned fame and were compensated to encourage others. That is the way it is supposed to work under our system of government.

What’s more, the replacement presumption of innocence provides civilian time before polices conduct an investigation, and to deter a quick arrest before he/she is committed a felony by the unjust law. The change is important because of time-lag effect our attorney system. One paradigmatic modern example is about Chinese Cultural Reform. Well educated professors are committed to serious felony, to topple socialism with knowledge learned from western culture, and were considered betraying traditional culture of China. Time will tell whether these professors involved in the toppling activity or not, while in contrast a lot of knowledge is reserved and protected in their deeds to the disobey and resist unjust law, using which our culture and knowledge developed after the reform. In the value system aspect, they also serve as example to people with rational thoughts, who did not take part in against productivity activities in our nation（take part in可以加介词吗？用take part in behaving against是不是稍微好点？）.  Paralleling to this, a well illustrated example in Physics serves as boarder evidence that achievement can stem from uncertainty. Namely, Quantum Mechanics is developed fundamentally from an unsustained theory - Particle and Wave Interpretations of Light.
  In sum, I would be deeply inspired by those who challenge unjust laws to serve public welfares. The challenge process, once it （was）established(或者直接用once established), will give us a more equal and civilized society.

不知道是我错觉还是怎么，我觉得好像很多句子里面都是一个句子里有几个谓语动词，建议多用些从句

nun318UID: 2205752

The second fundamental problem (fundamental problem是个中式表达可以用critical problem)with the statement is that, laws, no matter just or unjust, must be obeyed by all the individuals in the society. Admittedly, since it is difficult for a legislator to take every situation into account, unjustness sometimes is unavoidable. Moreover, some special laws are designed for special groups(defending special groups’ rights) in the society, for instance, the social security for the old and the handicapped(加个men). It is somewhat "unjust" because it stipulates that the old and the handicapped(加个men) could gain without pain(不劳而获profit by other people's toil). Such laws are designed to protect the social vulnerable groups. Surely, it is unfair for normal people who had to work hard and then he or she can gain the pension when retired.  However, could anyone regard it real unjustness concerning morality and then to disobey them?
这个老人拿退休金的例子不太恰当，可以改成失业人拿社会保障的例子更好些，毕竟绝大多数美国人退休后拿的都是他们工作期间自己交纳的保险，不是不劳而获  In my view, the correct attitude toward the flaws of established laws is to reflect them to the legislators through proper ways. Only in this mild way could social regulations be improved appropriately and we maintain our right to the most and without imprudence. The famous example is Martin Luther King's Campaign of Civil Rights for Black in the United States. Otherwise, it could do our society great disservice, as could be aptly illustrated by 1992 Los Angeles Riots.这个例子举得好！

  In sum, people with different priorities, interests, religious, culture, or status will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws with each other for that the chief function of the law is to strike a balance among competing interests. （这个句子分成两句可以表达的更清楚些）Therefore, we should check and modify certain laws in a correct and effective way. However, the speaker suggests an extreme and very dangerous one that might defeat its own purpose.
这个defeat its own purpose 我始终不理解
论证角度还是不错的，不过我认为第三段在逻辑层次上可以先于第二段，首先说遵守法律是每个人的义务，然后说即使的确有法律不公正，也不能以个人意志为转移。字数有点少，可以再补充一些内容

[ 本帖最后由 nun318 于 2008-1-18 22:33 编辑 ]

tainyUID: 2390008

改的 堕落 的

According to the title(speaker’s) statement, each individual has the responsibility to obey just laws and todisobey and resist unjust laws.(建议改为each individual has the responsibility not only to obey just laws but to disobey and resist unjust ones.) While(Although) I agree that everyone should obey just laws, which can ensure the stability of our legal system, I also prefer to think that we sometimes should also（两个also感觉都应去掉） obey the unjust laws instead of always(个人感觉应该去掉) resist them.

On the one hand, obeying just laws helps our society to stable our legal system.(stable是形容词不应这么用,改为obeying just laws helps our society to keep our society and legal system stable.) For instance,  laws about the safety of citizens’ lives. Each person should obey this law, or else(otherwise) the society will be in a mess because people do harm to each other and therefore the world becomes horrible for the reason that no one is security is ensured.(这句话好像不太对,改为otherwise the society would be in a mess if people did harm things to each other and then the world would probably become a horrible place for that the security of everybody is not ensured.这句话应该用虚拟语气，具体我也不太清楚，建议查相关资料)

On the other hand, obeying unjust laws also can keep our society stable. Consider, for example, the maximum rent regulation, which limits the highest price of renting houses. Because of the law, owners of the houses can not charge too much. As a result, the house renters may suffer a great loss and they certainly will think this law as something unjust. Nevertheless, citizens who have low income, such as students, will benefit from this law and they regard the law as just. In short, whether laws are just or unjust depends on each one’s personal interest. As a consequence, if house renters obey the law of maximum rent regulation, although their condition may become worse, citizens like students who need houses will benefit from it. The existence of the law tends to balance the loss of the house renters and the benefit of the borrowers, and obeyance towards the law makes the law itself to function well.

Furthermore, disobeying unjust laws does not always serve its original purposes of improving citizen’s quality of life and their civil rights. Returning to the maximum rent regulation example mentioned above, if every one(去掉) of the house-owners resist this law, citizens of low income will suffer and they may spend more money on house renting. Therefore, students will have less money to do other helpful things such as buying books, which, in the long run, may cause the educantion level of our countries to come down to some degree. What’s more, as the price of house renting increases, demands of the houses will decreases. As a result, although some house renters want to rent their houses, no one are willing to offer the high price they charge, therefore the renters themselves will suffer too. So resisting the unjust laws does not serve its original purposes, and on the contrary makes people’s condition worse.
(以上两段的例子仅仅是身边的小例子，想要更有说服力是不是应该举一些比较著名的例子)
In sum, obeying just laws is everyone’s responsibility, but when it comes to disobeying and resisting unjust laws, it is not necessarily the case. As far as I see, whether a law is just and(or) unjust depends on each person’s value system and interest. What each citizen should do is to think critically and frequently about our legal system instead of resisting the unjust laws only in order to improve the condition of himself.

(我个人认为你的观点有点局限，只是着眼于题目本身，而没有从深层次的发掘，我感觉北美上的观点基本正确，虽然后面的法律改革有点牵强。)

[ 本帖最后由 tainy 于 2008-1-18 22:01 编辑 ]