【喜洋洋杀G大队】dingyi0311,7.3号作业

dingyi0311UID: 2627919

issue17
The speaker asserts that there are two kinds of laws: just and unjust, and individual should obey the just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws. I agree with the first part of the speaker`s assertion, yet, the second part need to be deliberately treated.

I totally agree with the first part of the speaker`s assertion that individual in a society has the responsibility to obey just laws, For that it is the law that enable the society peace and stable. Provided the criminals cannot be punished and restrained in the prison, more murders, robbers, and kidnaps will happen all around world. If the law of anti-monopoly is not exist there, there are only a few giant companies in every realm, then the right of the consumers can hardly be protected, for that they can set the price much higher as no competition exist, and if there are no laws to curb the drug, more young people will addicted in. In fact, the laws are the backbones of our society, without it, our society will quickly be fraught with chaos and dingy tings.


For the second Part of the speaker`s assertion I agree that the unjust laws should be resisted. it is through the martin Luther king`s resists to the unjust laws especially stipulated for the black people that the social status of the colored ones has improved. Otherwise, the black people now may not enjoy the same social well being as white people, cannot have the right to vote, and even could not have a decent job. The Britain used to rein the American people with unjust laws; they dump their product and ask for high tax from the local people. Finally, the American people take weapons to free themselves from the unjust laws. Without the Independent War, American now could not become one of the most prosperous developed countries in the world.

nonetheless, the speaker`s assertion that it is important for a civilian to disobey and resist unjust laws is risky and arbitrate. It can encourage or abets people to unjustly violate the laws. Moreover, there is only a line between just and unjust law. Different people can hold different opinions in different stance or perspective. it is very different to define whether the law is just or not. For example, as the essence of the law is to protect the rights of an individual from being infringed by the others, the laws that levy more taxes from the rich people and the anti-monopoly laws undoultably be harmful to the interests of the rich people. However, it is ridiculous to deem these laws as unjust law and call the rich ones to disobey and resist. In fact, these laws serve to the interests of the masses and help to render this society with harmony and balance.
In sum, I fundamentally agree with the speaker that an individual in the society possess the responsibility to obey the just laws and disobey or resist the unjust laws. However, one need to carefully distinguish whether at law is unjust or not on the stance of the interests of the public but oneself.

wu-intrepidUID: 2659758

The speaker asserts that there are two kinds of laws: just and unjust, and individual should obey the just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws. I agree with the first part of the speaker`s assertion, yet, the second part need to be deliberately treated.

I totally agree with the first part of the speaker`s assertion that individual in a society has the responsibility to obey just laws, For that it is the law that enable the society peace and stable（词性应该统一）. Provided the criminals cannot be punished and restrained in the prison, more murders, robbers, and kidnaps will happen all around the (是不是应该加个the)world. If the law of anti-monopoly is not exist there, and there are only a few giant companies in every realm, then the right of the consumers can hardly be protected, for that they can set the price much higher as no competition exist, and if there are no laws to curb the drug, more young people will addicted in. In fact, the laws are the backbones of our society, without it, our society will quickly be fraught with chaos and dingy tings.


For the second part of the speaker`s assertion I agree that the unjust laws should be resisted. it is through the martin Luther king`s resists to the unjust laws especially stipulated for the black people that the social status of the colored ones has improved. Otherwise, the black people now may not enjoy the same social well being as white people, 加个连接词cannot have the right to vote, and even could not have a decent job. The Britain used to rein the American people with unjust laws; they dump their product and ask for high tax from the local people. Finally, the American people take weapons to free themselves from the unjust laws. Without the Independent War, American now could not become one of the most prosperous developed countries in the world.

Nonetheless, the speaker`s assertion that it is important for a civilian to disobey and resist unjust laws is risky and arbitrate. It can encourage or abets people to unjustly violate the laws. Moreover, there is only a line between just and unjust law.这句话和紧接着下面的似乎没什么联系，因为那条line是什么你还没说呢 Different people can hold different opinions in different stance or perspective. it is very different应该是difficult吧 to define whether the law is just or not. For example, as the essence of the law is to protect the rights of an individual from being infringed by the others, the laws that levy more taxes from the rich people and the anti-monopoly laws undoultably be harmful to the interests of the rich people. However, it is ridiculous to deem these laws as unjust law and call the rich ones to disobey and resist. In fact, these laws serve to the interests of the masses and help to render this society with harmony and balance.In sum, I fundamentally agree with the speaker that an individual in the society possess the responsibility to obey the just laws and disobey or resist the unjust laws. However, one need to carefully distinguish whether at law is unjust or not on the stance of the interests of the public but oneself.

我说说我的拙见，水平不高，说错勿怪....首先倒数第二段有个a line我觉得很重要，但是你似乎没有具体说这条界限是什么，即区分正当与否的标准是什么。唯一提到的就是 serve to the interests of the masses and help to render this society with harmony and balance.和not on the stance of the interests of the public but oneself.但具体是什么似乎没说清楚，相反从你的例子来看我觉得好像对法律的评价是因人而异的。

还有一个整体性问题就是倒数第三段和倒数第二段我觉得有点矛盾，你看，前面一段开头你说I agree that the unjust laws should be resisted后一段开头你说resist unjust laws is risky and arbitrate，我大致理解你的意思，可是用英文表达的可能不够清楚，而且你关于美国战争的例子可能不大好，难道战争还不够risky吗。我想这里你可以举个平和的例子说明我们可以温和地反对，但不能出现大的动荡。

我的建议是把第二段去掉，写完不能risky后直接摆出你关于如何改善不正当的法律的建议，这样升华一下主题，就避免矛盾了。

这个问题蛮难的，我们可以在群里好好讨论法律正当性的问题O(∩_∩)O~

pinokuUID: 2435028

issue17
The speaker asserts that there are two kinds of laws: just and unjust, and individual should obey the just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws. I agree with the first part of the speaker`s assertion, yet, the second part needs to be deliberately treated.

I totally agree with the first part of the speaker`s assertion that individual in a society has the responsibility to obey just laws, For that it is the law that enable the society peace and stable（stability）. Provided the criminals cannot be punished and restrained in the prison, more murders, robbers, and kidnaps will happen all around world. If the law of anti-monopoly is not exist there, there are only a few giant companies in every realm, then the right of the consumers can hardly be protected, （这个例子很不错）for that they can set the price much higher as no competition exist, and if there are no laws to curb the drug, more young people will addicted in. In fact, the laws are the backbones of our society, without it, our society will quickly be fraught with chaos and dingy tings.好


For the second Part of the speaker`s assertion I agree that the unjust laws should be resisted. it is through the martin Luther king`s resists to the unjust laws especially stipulated（我不是很懂这个地方，因为我觉得it is 和stipulate 之间好像错了，读起来不对，这个句子你思考后告我一声吧） for the black people that the social status of the colored ones has improved. Otherwise, the black people now may not enjoy the same social well being as white people do, cannot have the right to vote, and even could not have a decent job. The Britain used to rein the American people with unjust laws; they dump their product and ask for high tax from the local people. Finally, the American people take weapons to free themselves from the unjust laws. Without the Independent War, American now could not become one of the most prosperous developed countries in the world.

nonetheless, the speaker`s assertion that it is important for a civilian to disobey and resist unjust laws is risky and arbitrate. It can encourage or abets去掉吧 people to unjustly violate the laws. Moreover, there is only a line between just and unjust law. Different people can hold different opinions in different stance or perspective. it is very different to define whether the law is just or not. For example, as the essence of the law is to protect the rights of an individual from being infringed by the others, the laws that levy more taxes from the rich people and the anti-monopoly laws undoultably be harmful to the interests of the rich people. However, it is ridiculous to deem these laws as unjust law and call the rich ones to disobey and resist. In fact, these laws serve to the interests of the masses and help to render this society with harmony and balance.
In sum, I fundamentally agree with the speaker that an individual in the society possess the responsibility to obey the just laws and disobey or resist the unjust laws. However, one need to carefully distinguish whether at law is unjust or not on the stance of the interests of the public but oneself.

楼主的语言不错，基本没有语法的错误，有几个地方我也不确定，如果你分析了后请告诉我答案。
这个我也觉得第三段和第二段之间有点牵强。不如把第三段放在前面，然后第三段的时候来个让步，这样会不会说的通点？
大家多多交流！