issue17 大家帮我看看吧，还有15天就要考了，谢谢谢谢！！！！！！

platasUID：173358

---题目——
Issure 17
   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.

——正文——
    As matter of fact,I think the statement is twofold.one is the laws could be
cactorized into two: the just or the unjust. The other is what we should is to obey
the just ones and disobey the unjust ones,which is more important to the society.
As for me, I tend to disaagree with the first one fundamentally, but as for the
second one, the validity should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
   

    The primary reason why I tend to be against the first one is on the history of
the law. As we know, in the ancient Babylon a famous law was promulgated, which was
considered as the basis of the modern laws. But this law  was edited in a slavery
country,so the content is designed to serve the upper level. To many slaves, it's
unjust, which robed them of the freedom, families and so forth. In fact, in the
oppressed societies, the just laws seem to be incredible.Let us turn to the free
society, take now as the example. When we make laws, the legislation administration
would absorb represantative from all the classes in the society.The administration
should make sure the law promulguated is just to everyone.Sometimes only justness
is not enough, even the law is demanded to make people can get profit from it. So
from the sense, there can't be unjust law around us.Even the law is partial,and it
will be amended soon,because we in the free society, we can freely express our
ideas,also the elected government should respect what we care about.
   
   
     Another reason I tend to disagree with it is based on the definition of the
laws.In our society everyone has his own freedom, we are object with the freedom
with no constraints.Because others' freedom may mean dangourous to us. So a law is
a balance that comes from different interests. It preserves us privilege which
might be violated. So from some point,the law is a compromising result. Unjustness
doesn't exist. Of course, to the criminals ,the above discussion is invalid. I
think it is the exception.
   
   
      Admittedly,sometimes in the oppresed society,we can't resort to the legal
process to alter unjustness. Because the whole justifiable thing is controled by
the ruling class. Albeit the law is unjust , we can't solve it in peace.For
example, in the feudalistic society in China, Many peasants burdened heavy tax from
the lord ,to the governer, then to the empire. They were exploited for year by
year.So the real freedom is luxury to them because no just laws existed. If they
want to change the status quo, they should disobeyed and resisted with the
goverment. TO them a free ,democratic society is the basis for their deserve right.
China history is replete with such aptly exemples.Only through violence can we have
the equal society.

   
     However, we are in a democratic, equal cites.It is precious to everyone for
preserving the stable society. From the above , there is no such unjust law around
us.If the society does has ,we should resort to the leagal process,some forms of
non violence activity are permitted.But we mustn't disobey or resisit them.These
violence may cause calamity to some one else.It's entierly that this behaviour
would threaten others' freedom.If Martin Luther King appealed to violence to solve
the gap between the White.The US may fall into turmoil,the stability is to be
broken. Everyone 's right got threatened.And If this violence winned, I don't think
the inequality would disappear at least, even deteriorate.
So I disagree with violence way to solve the unjustness. Peaceful way should be our
only choice when face such unjust laws,for example, protest legally, or conduct
legal process.

    In sum, around us there are no such unjust laws, If only , it suggested to
break such unjustness peacefully considering others' interest and the stable society



改一下，^_^，大家帮帮忙

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-11 at 13:10 ]

ahqiuUID：207682

待会儿改完给你

ahqiuUID：207682

格式不太对的说

platasUID：173358

谢谢了

chenda8201UID：171368

先把你的习作copy下来～
今晚再帮你看看咯
现在手头任务太多了。。。

ahqiuUID：207682

As matter of fact, I think the statement is twofold .one is （that）the laws could be cactorized（什么词，不认识） into two: the just or the unjust（改成just and unjust，两个形容词）. The other is what we should is to obey the just ones and disobey the unjust ones（ones 去掉）,which is more important to the society. （语法错误啊，The other is what we should do is to~~）As for me, I tend to disaagree（disagree）
with the first one fundamentally, but as for the second one, the validity should be determined on a case-by-case basis. （都不承认第一个，怎么可能有第二个呢，把law分成just and unjust 是前提阿，我不太明白你的意思）第一段有点长，注意语法和拼写错误。
    The primary reason why I tend to be against the first one is on the history of the law. As we know, in the ancient Babylon a famous law was promulgated, which was considered as the basis of the modern laws. But this law  was edited in a slavery country, so the content is designed to serve the upper level. To many slaves, it's unjust, which robed them of the freedom, families and so forth. In fact, in the oppressed societies, the just laws seem to be incredible. Let us turn to the free society, take now as the example. When we make laws, the legislation administration would absorb represantative（representative） from all the classes in the society. The administration should make sure(that) the law promulguated(promulgated law) is just to everyone.（这是在论证，不适应不应该阿） Sometimes only justness is not enough, even the law is demanded to make people can(是想表达能够吗，be able to) get profit from it. So from the(this) sense, there can't(不要那么绝对阿) be unjust law around us.Even the law is partial,and it will be amended soon,because we in the free society, we can freely express our ideas,also the elected government should respect what we care about.（你不也承认partial, justness incredible了吗）
     Another reason（which） I tend to disagree with it is based on the definition of the laws.In our society everyone has his own freedom, we are（are去掉） object with the freedom with no constraints.Because others' freedom(freedom of others) may mean dangourous（dangerousness） to us. So a law is a balance that comes from different interests. It preserves us privilege which might be violated. So from some point (to some extent我好像没见过这种用法),the law is a compromising result. Unjustness doesn't exist. Of course, to the criminals ,the above discussion is invalid. I think it is the exception.很没道理的论证啊，你说的是法律存在的必要性，与just有什么关系呢，存在的就一定公平吗，把目光回到过去，这种例子不是很多吗，比如关于voting rights of women，civil rights for people of color的规定
前两段都说没有unjust，后面怎么论证alter unjustness.逻辑有问题
      Admittedly, sometimes in the oppresed society,we can't resort to the legal process to alter unjustness. Because the whole justifiable thing is controled（controlled） by the ruling class. Albeit the law is unjust , we can't（考试不能用缩写） solve it in peace. （这句话的意思不对阿）For example, in the feudalistic society in China, Many peasants burdened heavy tax from the lord ,to the governer,（governor） then to the empire（不能那么写吧，那几个to,虽然我能理解）. They were exploited for year by year. So the real freedom is luxury to them because no just laws existed. If they want to change the status quo, they should（must） disobeyed and resisted with the government. TO them a free（什么意思） ,democratic society is the basis for their deserve right. China history is replete with such aptly exemples(为什么阿，在说两句也好啊).Only through violence can we have the equal society.（不懂最后一句，和前面那个中国的例子有什么关系）
     However, we are in a democratic, equal cites（society）.It is precious to everyone for preserving the stable society. From the above , there is no such unjust law around us.If the society does has ,we should resort to the leagal process,some forms of nonviolence activity are permitted.But we mustn't disobey or resisit them.These violence may cause calamity to some one else.It's entierly that this behaviour would threaten others' freedom.If Martin Luther King appealed to violence to solve the gap between the White.The US may fall into turmoil ,the stability is to be broken. Everyone 's right got threatened. And If this violence winned, I don't think the inequality would disappear at least, even deteriorate.So I disagree with violence way to solve the unjustness. Peaceful way should be our only choice when face such unjust laws,for example, protest legally, or conduct legislate process.
    In sum, around us there are no such unjust laws, If only , it suggested to break such unjustness peacefully considering others' interest and the
觉得语法错误很多，有的句子太短，不好
对于你的观点我觉得逻辑有问题，至少我不赞同这么去写，不必去考虑是否存在just和unjust，直接写对待这两种法律的态度要好一些，讲讲你的态度，将将为什么，就差不多了

chenda8201UID：171368

有些话不得不说。。。

Originally posted by chenda8201 at 2005-7-7 07:37
你的习作发文格式不对啊，这样很难有人要给你看的
看看置顶文章，下次把发文格式标题弄好

我待会来看看你的
先把自己的修改了再说^_^

我想问一下：是否把习作扔上来，大喊大叫，然后有人提些意见，就觉得满足了；然后就不理了。。。
上述这些引用的话，可是我跟贴在你的上一篇issue48中的；
还有正文中的话也一起引用过来。。。

Originally posted by chenda8201 at 2005-7-7 14:09
------Issue48-------
题目:  The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups  ...

[段与段之间空出一行来，每段首字母顶格写，无须缩进]
[建议写好了要自己放到word里面改掉那些拼写有误的单词和标点的位置，这篇文章放到word里面，“血淋淋”感觉，n多红线。。。——由于拼写错误或是把标点位置搞错，连同相邻单词被认为是一起的导致的。。。标点要在单词后，然后空格，再然后才是拼写另一个单词。。。。。。。。]

这些话不知作者有印象否？？
我想既然我看了，我认为有问题，我就得说出来
我想既然把作文放到这里来就得首先对自己负责；
放在这里也是希望通过被人发现问题，从而改正；
否则互改意义何在呢？
如果作者认为很不爽，那不妨去pk我写得那些，我正求之不得呢^_^
我还是先吃饭去。。。
晚点抽空再看；
若是作者能自己先改改那就很好。。。

platasUID：173358

---题目——
Issure 17   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.


——正文———
As matter of fact,I think the statement is twofold.one is the laws could be
cactorized into two: the just or the unjust. The other is what we should is to obey
the just ones and disobey the unjust ones,which is more important to the society.
As for me, I tend to disaagree with the first one fundamentally, but as for the
second one, the validity should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
   

The primary reason why I tend to be against the first one is on the history of
the law. As we know, in the ancient Babylon a famous law was promulgated, which was
considered as the basis of the modern laws. But this law  was edited in a slavery
country,so the content is designed to serve the upper level. To many slaves, it's
unjust, which robed them of the freedom, families and so forth. In fact, in the
oppressed societies, the just laws seem to be incredible.Let us turn to the free
society, take now as the example. When we make laws, the legislation administration
would absorb represantative from all the classes in the society.The administration
should make sure the law promulguated is just to everyone.Sometimes only justness
is not enough, even the law is demanded to make people can get profit from it. So
from the sense, there can't be unjust law around us.Even the law is partial,and it
will be amended soon,because we in the free society, we can freely express our
ideas,also the elected government should respect what we care about.
   
   
Another reason I tend to disagree with it is based on the definition of the
laws.In our society everyone has his own freedom, we are object with the freedom
with no constraints.Because others' freedom may mean dangourous to us. So a law is a balance that comes from different interests. It preserves us privilege which
might be violated. So from some point,the law is a compromising result. Unjustness
doesn't exist. Of course, to the criminals ,the above discussion is invalid. I
think it is the exception.
   
   
Admittedly,sometimes in the oppresed society,we can't resort to the legal
process to alter unjustness. Because the whole justifiable thing is controled by
the ruling class. Albeit the law is unjust , we can't solve it in peace.For
example, in the feudalistic society in China, Many peasants burdened heavy tax from
the lord ,to the governer, then to the empire. They were exploited for year by
year.So the real freedom is luxury to them because no just laws existed. If they
want to change the status quo, they should disobeyed and resisted with the
goverment. TO them a free ,democratic society is the basis for their deserve right.
China history is replete with such aptly exemples.Only through violence can we have
the equal society.

   
However, we are in a democratic, equal cites.It is precious to everyone for
preserving the stable society. From the above , there is no such unjust law around
us.If the society does has ,we should resort to the leagal process,some forms of
non violence activity are permitted.But we mustn't disobey or resisit them.These
violence may cause calamity to some one else.It's entierly that this behaviour
would threaten others' freedom.If Martin Luther King appealed to violence to solve
the gap between the White.The US may fall into turmoil,the stability is to be
broken. Everyone 's right got threatened.And If this violence winned, I don't think
the inequality would disappear at least, even deteriorate.
So I disagree with violence way to solve the unjustness. Peaceful way should be our
only choice when face such unjust laws,for example, protest legally, or conduct
legal process.

In sum, around us there are no such unjust laws, If only , it suggested to
break such unjustness peacefully considering others' interest and the stable society

platasUID：173358

楼上说话犀利的说，老实讲大家都希望自己的文章能够得到修改，所以会有吸引眼球的做法，^_^。

其实我也再看其他人的文章，当然包括你的。虽然没有版砖。如果不愿意，我8会care
＋U 祝我们！

chenda8201UID：171368

Originally posted by platas at 2005-7-10 18:50
楼上说话犀利的说，老实讲大家都希望自己的文章能够得到修改，所以会有吸引眼球的做法，^_^。

其实我也再看其他人的文章，当然包括你的。虽然没有版砖。如果不愿意，我8会care
＋U 祝我们！

承认我刚才说话确实发镖了。。。
太饿了；
还要自己做饭吃。。。
（本科毕业，虽然保研，可学校暑假不给房子；还要自己花钱跑到离学校很远的地方自己租房子。。。）
然后看到之前说过的话都没怎么被理似得，所以咯。。。
望见谅啊:handshake

现在吃饱了，待会争取时间来看看你得^_^

翦瞳UID：184872

As [a] matter of fact,I think the statement is twofold. One is the laws could be
categorized into two: the just or the unjust. The other is what we should [do] is to obey
the just ones and disobey the unjust ones,which is more important to the society.
As for me, I tend [intent] to disaagree with the first one fundamentally, but as for the
second one, the validity should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
  [空一行] 稍微罗嗦了些，层次很明白

The primary reason why I tend to be against the first one is on the history of
the law. As we know, in the ancient Babylon a famous law was promulgated, which was
considered as the basis of the modern laws. But this law  was edited in a slavery
country,so the content is designed to serve the upper level. To many slaves, it's
unjust, which robed them of the freedom, families and so forth. In fact, in the
oppressed societies, the just laws seem to be incredible[加一句：in our modern view]. Let us turn to the free
society, taketaking now as the example. When we make laws, the legislation administration
would [中国的国情，美国是这样的吗？我不知道，但是事实不能够代表所有人]absorb represantative from all the classes in the society.The administration
should make sure the law promulguated is just to everyone.Sometimes only justness
is not enough, even the law is demanded to make people can [去掉] get profit from it. So
from the sense, there can't be unjust law around us. [很别扭, we should prevent unjust laws from us.] Even the law is partial,and [是表达除非的意思吗？ 换用 until 可以否？] it
will be amended soon,because we[少了谓语 are] in the free society, we can freely express our
ideas,also the elected government should respect what we care about.
   [最后的句子很乱，主谓语和连词用得有点乱，要改一改]   
     Another reason I tend to disagree with it is based on the definition of the
laws.In our society everyone has his own freedom, we are object with the freedom
with no constraints. [object 可以直接跟在 are 后面？作名词？去掉 are?] Because others' freedom may mean dangourous [拼写]to us. So a law is
a balance that comes from different interests. It preserves][provide us with] us privilege which
might be violated[by others]. So from [to some extent] some point,the law is a compromising result. Unjustness
doesn't exist.[just and unjust 都不存在？矛盾！] Of course, to the criminals ,the above discussion is invalid. I
think it is the exception.[为什么invalid? 罪犯也有人权的.]
   
   
      Admittedly,sometimes in the oppresed oppressive] society,we can't resort to the legal
process to alter unjustness.[带有新中国刚解放的感觉，有些武断] Because the whole justifiable thing is controled by
the ruling class. Albeit the law is unjust , we can't solve it in peace.For
example, in the feudalistic society in China, Many peasants burdened heavy tax from
the lord ,to the governer, then to the empire. They were exploited for year by
year.So the real freedom is luxury to them because no just laws existed. If they
want to change the status quo？, they should disobeyed and resisted with the
goverment. TO them a free？ ,democratic society is the basis for their deserve [deserved] right.
China history is replete with such aptly [apt] exemples.Only through violence can we have
the equal society. [太绝对，这样不好解释]

   
     However, we are in a democratic, equal cites.It is precious to everyone for
preserving the stable society. From the above , there is no such unjust law around
us.If the society does has ,we should resort to the leagal process,some forms of
non violence activity are permitted.But we mustn't disobey or resisit them.These
violence may cause calamity to some one else.It's entierly that this behaviour
would threaten others' freedom.If Martin Luther King appealed to violence to solve
the gap between the White.The US may fall into turmoil,the stability is to be
broken. Everyone 's right got threatened.And If this violence winned, I don't think
the inequality would disappear at least, even deteriorate.
So I disagree with violence way to solve the unjustness. Peaceful way should be our
only choice when face such unjust laws,for example, protest legally, or conduct
legal process.

    In sum, around us there are no such unjust laws, If only , it suggested to
break such unjustness peacefully considering others' interest and the stable society

楼主的拼写错误和词性的错用很多，要在word 里改改在传吧，别人的劳动就轻些！

我后面没有勇气改下去了，大概看了意思，因为它跟第四段意思完全相反，逻辑出现问题。诸如此类的，本来可能是想让步的，结果说的太绝对，逻辑问题。

“刚说完，只有暴力解决问题，就说和平才是唯一的选择。”

[ Last edited by 翦瞳 on 2005-7-10 at 23:06 ]

chenda8201UID：171368

---题目——
Issure [Issue]17
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.

[再罗嗦，段与段之间空一行；每段的单词顶格写！]
——正文——
As [a] matter of fact, [空格]I think the statement is twofold. [空格]one is [that] the laws could be cactorized [factorized] into two: the just or the unjust. The other is what we should is to obey the just ones and disobey the unjust ones, [空格]which is more important to the society. As for me, I tend to disaagree [disagree] with the first one fundamentally, but as for the second one, the validity should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
   
The primary reason why I tend to be against the first one is [based] on the history of the law. As we know, in the ancient Babylon a famous law was promulgated, which was considered as the basis of the modern laws. But this law  was edited in a slavery country, [空格]so [这里都没有因果关系，把so改成and] the content is designed to serve the upper level. To many slaves, it's unjust, which robed them of the freedom, families and so forth. In fact, in the oppressed societies, the just laws seem to be incredible. [空格]Let us turn to the free society, take now [把now改成laws in modern society] as the example. When we make laws [Making the new law], the legislation administration would absorb represantative [representative] from all the classes in the society. [空格]The administration should make sure [that] the law promulguated [promulgated] is just to everyone. [空格]Sometimes only justness is not enough, even the law is demanded to make people can get profit from it. So from the sense, there can't be unjust law around us. [空格]Even the law is partial, [空格]and it will be amended soon, [空格]because we in the free society, we can freely express our ideas, [空格]also the elected government should respect what we care about.
[这段的例子编的有些出格吧。。。想想，就算现在的society是如何的free，可是上述的情况确实吹嘘得过头了吧。。。。还有，所谓的free society 改成用democratic society]
   
Another reason I tend to disagree with it is based on the definition of the laws. [空格]In our society everyone has his own freedom, we are object with the freedom with no constraints. [空格]Because others' freedom may mean dangourous [dangerous] to us. So a law is a balance that comes from different interests. It preserves us privilege which might be violated. So from some point [to some extent], [空格]the law is a compromising result. Unjustness doesn't exist. Of course, to the criminals, the above discussion is invalid. I think it is the exception.
[law对于criminal能用不公平来说吗？。。。。有待深究]
  
Admittedly, [空格]sometimes in the oppresed [oppressed] society [把这个oppressed society 改成autarchy吧], [空格]we can't resort to the legal process to alter unjustness. Because the whole justifiable thing is controled [controlled] by the ruling class. Albeit the law is unjust, we can't solve it in peace. [空格]For example, in the feudalistic society in China, Many peasants burdened heavy tax from the lord ,to the governer [governor], then to the empire. They were exploited for year by year. [空格]So the real freedom is luxury to them because no just laws existed. If they want to change the status quo, they should disobeyed [disobey] and resisted [resist] with the goverment [government]. TO them a free, democratic society is the basis for their [its] deserve right. China history is replete with such aptly exemples [examples]. [空格]Only through violence can we have the equal society.

However, we are in a democratic, equal cites. [空格]It is precious to everyone for preserving the stable society. From the above, there is no such unjust law around us. [空格]If the society does has ,we should resort to the leagal [legal] process, [空格]some forms of non violence activity are permitted. [空格]But we mustn't disobey or resisit [resist] them. [空格]These violence may cause calamity to some one else. [空格]It's entierly [entirely] that this behaviour [behavior] would threaten others' freedom. [空格]If Martin Luther King appealed to violence to solve the gap between the White. [空格]The US may fall into turmoil, [空格]the stability is to be broken. Everyone 's right got threatened. [空格]And If this violence winned, I don't think the inequality would disappear at least, even deteriorate. [空格]So I disagree with violence way to solve the unjustness. Peaceful way should be our only choice when face such unjust laws, [空格]for example, protest legally, or conduct legal process.

In sum, around us there are no such unjust laws, If only, it suggested to break such unjustness peacefully considering others' interest and the stable society[.]

[嗯，琢磨了一下作者的思路，有些明白；不过作者没能把很多想说的话表达出来；我也是为这表达的弱而苦恼啊。。然后就是例子的问题，我想就算瞎编也不要太过分了吧。。。。]


这是给你改的第二篇了，发现上一次说到的格式问题，依然不更正。。。
今晚累得要趴下了；肚子突然又痛。。。没发再细说了。。