issue17

423165179UID: 2649312

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

This issue raised a question between 'just laws' and 'unjust laws', as well as the relationship between laws and moral, laws and our society. However, I foundmentally disapprove with the notion this issue put forwarded.There are several agruments against this issue's notion. Above all, every one may have his own judgement towards laws. For instance, some may think laws against homosexual marriges are unfair to homosexual’s rights, while some may think it is benefit to our moral buliding; some may think birth control is a barrier to human rights’ implement, while some may think it is benefit to the future of earth. Consequently, a nation will not make up even a single law if it wants to meet every person's needs. As we all known, law is made by the dominator, not by the whole society. And law is make up considering the cluture, the social environment as well as the moral rules and many other factors of where it used to take effective. It can only reflect the general ideology of a society, it cannot be perfect, it cannot obtain every person's agreement. Albeit, we cannot disobey it because it is not perfect, or because it come against moral, against our own principles. If we do like that, law will lose its holy rights and has no limitation over people.

On the other hand, not only our citizens, the judge, as the excutor of law, should not add his personal judgements and emotions into cases. He can not claim a murderer's innocence, only because who he had killed was a robber absconded for many years. He cannot claim a suspicion's guilt without effective proof, even if the suspicion is a well known disaster. Comparing to moral, law is more fixed. Once it was draw up, it will not transfer with people's will. Mostly, people should only execute or obey what it was writed. After this, law can regulate our society, our nation, our humanbeing.

However, this notion doesnot equal to that we cannot make revise on law. Since law cannot be perfect and will change with time and space, it always need revised. For my part, people who has disagreement on a particular legal clause can reflect his thought through some organizations which set by nation government to collect citizen's suggestion and to get legal authorty to complete law system. The government should also continuously assure the holy and firm character of law. Through this method, we can add agility into the law as well as guarantee its effect.

To sum up, since law is the reflcetion of general dominant range's will and cannot change with people's needs, we should obey laws whether it adjust our own principles or not. Otherwise, we can still make reverse on it through regular means. Only after this, we can assure the rights of law and complete it continuously.

david36355UID: 2603992

= =我不小心给ahng改了…………
表着急，马上给你= =

david36355UID: 2603992

首先抱歉……修改动作太慢，今天方才交上来……
另外，文章里的语法和拼写错误就直接用红色打底了，见谅见谅……
TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

This issue raised a question between 'just laws' and 'unjust laws', as well as the relationship between laws and moral, laws and our society. However, I fundamentally disapprove with（去掉） the notion this issue put forward.（入题很速度……要是在前头能够看出一点儿逻辑推导就更好了）
There are several agruments against this issue's notion. Above all, every one may have his own judgement towards laws. For instance, some may think laws against homosexual marriges are unfair to homosexual’s rights, while some may think it is benefit to our moral buliding; some may think birth control is a barrier to human rights’ implement, while some may think it is benefit to the future of earth. （稍微字数有一点儿多呀，可以炼字试试看）Consequently, a nation will not make up even a single law if it wants to meet every person's needs.（衔接得不错） As we all known, law is made by the dominator, not by the whole society. And law is make up considering the cluture(culture), the social environment as well as the moral rules and many other factors of where it used to take effective. It can only reflect the general ideology of a society, it cannot be perfect, it cannot obtain every person's agreement. （……太多it了！！）（而且至此为止一直都在论述一个东西：法律众口难调，但是貌似还没有给出十分漂亮的论证来）Albeit, we cannot disobey it because it is not perfect,（……又是it） or because it come against moral, against our own principles. If we do like that, law will lose its holy rights and has no limitation over people.
结构还是很不错的，从只不过语言……虽然也都没有错误，但是看起来总是有点儿不顺当，甚至到了想通篇刮红的地步= =。以此为重点修行吧……因为语言有点儿冗余，所以论证力度相对来说也被undermine了，蛮可惜的。语言简单口语化倾向貌似很严重？
On the other hand, not only our citizens, the judge, as the executor of law, should not add his personal judgements and emotions into cases.(= =话说这不和上一点犯重复么……都是个人角度出发法律这东西不一定怎么着而已) He can not claim a murderer's innocence, only because who he had killed was a robber absconded for many years. He cannot claim a suspicion's guilt without effective proof, even if the suspicion is a well known disaster. （这样的论证不是不行，但是要是每段都用一次就麻烦咯）Comparing to moral（其实，moral不是一个名词= =）, law is more fixed. Once it was draw up, it will not transfer with people's will. Mostly, people should only execute or obey what it was writed. After this, law can regulate our society, our nation, our human being.（高中作文末尾段的气息在弥漫，但实话说老美碰到这句会晕菜的）

However, this notion doesnot equal to that we cannot make revise on law. Since law cannot be perfect and will change with time and space, it always need revised. For my part, people who has disagreement on a particular legal clause can reflect his thought through some organizations which set by nation government to collect citizen's suggestion and to get legal authorty to complete law system. The government should also continuously assure the holy and firm character of law. Through this method, we can add agility into the law as well as guarantee its effect.
（时间不够没有展开吧……另，这里仍然是针对第一点也就是法律这东西还是有不公正性存在的，而此处提出的是一个解决方式。但是，如此说来ISSUE中的那个disobey和resist的问题就神隐了= =）

To sum up, since law is the reflcetion of general dominant range's will and cannot change with people's needs, we should obey laws whether it adjust our own principles or not. Otherwise, we can still make reverse on it through regular means. Only after this, we can assure the rights of law and complete it continuously.
结尾其实还可以，逻辑比较清楚……但是严重需要扩充和丰满。

david36355UID: 2603992

彩色版在此………………

抱歉，下一篇马上