issue17义无反顾小组第二次作业

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

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."
有两种法律：公平的和不公平的。社会中的每个人都应该遵守公平的法律，更重要的是，不遵守或者违抗不公平的法律

论据（一）公正和不公正没有确切定义，人人都反对自己认为不公正的法律，社会会一片混乱。
      （二）法律的缺憾在民主社会可以通过较缓和的方式改善
      （三）对于一些违反人类基本原则的法律，可以认为其不公正，我们应抵制。

Law can be regarded as just or unjust, and an individual is obliged to obey just laws. But is it reasonable that one disobeys and resists unjust laws? discussion of this issue  has come into vogue in recent years. In my point of view, I disagree the speaker's claim, and i would like to present some evidence to support my standpoint。

Actually, the opinion of law varies wildly, for one's attitud of what is right and wrong law are variable. Just law, defined as an established standard or rules which is free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception, provides methods for ensuring the impartial treat of people.That is to say,people get due reward or punishment for his act. Thus, absenting clear definition ,the judgment on whether a specific law is just or unjust is immature .Supposing everyone  resists what he deems as unjust, no law is valid and justifiable, which will lead  to nothing but chaos  among people and in society.

Secondly, the lack of uniformity of justice not only rises direct disobedience and resistance to rules ,but also hamper people's intention to improve the justice system. Common sense tell us nothing is perfect, so as to law. They are established by the authority and represent their interests, so usually contain  inequalities in the system. But in a democratic society, the written laws, admitted by the major members, are the moral laws that each individual should follow. The flaws maybe improved by  comparatively gentle behaviors ,such as emendation、addition or reform the whole system. Simply by retaliating upon the society,  we can't reach any good solution.

Thirdly. we should realize if a law, to some extent, degrades people's personality ,it can be identified as unjustice.We can not forget how the segregation statutes put sand in the wheels of harmoniousness between different ethic groups last century. Violating the fundamental principles that everyone is born in equality. it received immense objection and protest. No one have the right to distorts other's soul and  dignity. Furthermore, no law can give one kind of people a false sense of superiority while give others a false sense of inferiority only according to  the color of their skins. As far as it concerned, we are justifiable to fight for this law.

In sum, although there are various attitudes towards just law and unjust law, this can't result in the conclusion that laws is of bit effection in coordinate people's relationship and conduct thier behavior. It is people's right and freedom to judge whether a law is just or unjust. What’s more important, it is our responsibility to obey them in a civilized society.

花了好长时间才写完，压力好大，要向其他队员好好学习

glxingUID: 2156425

偶限时了，5555，真难受，一紧张什么都想不出来了，限时后果然是另外一个水平，绝对的！
提纲：1，支持  agree
      2， on the one hand, we should obey just laws not only for the stableness of society but also for our own interests.  The traffic laws.一方面，对于善法我们应当遵守，既有利于他人也有利于自己。交通规则
      3，on the other hand, the flawed and unfair laws is necessary to exist. Obeying them without questioning can cause some bad results. The Hitler administration made many laws aiming to harm the Jews. 另一方面，更重要的，对于恶法，因为其不公或是有纰漏，如果盲目的服从会带来不好的结果，希特勒时期的德国
      4，Actually, if we resist those unjust laws, the legislators would have to change the unjust laws and then society can gain progress. Martin Luther King 并且，如果不服从或违抗，就会迫使当局改变。马丁路德金
      5,结尾
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."
WORDS: 454          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-5-9

What should we do about laws, obeying or resisting without any criticism? In fact, as the author mentions, there are two types of laws and every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws, moreover, the latter one is more important.

On the one hand, we should obey just laws not only for the stableness of society but also for our own interests. The just laws, defined as fair regulations which consider most or even all people's interest and rights when they are made, has the function of keeping the society in order. Without obeying such laws the society would fall into chaos and in turn, our own rights and even life would be in harm, so as an individual in society, we have a responsibility to obey them. For example, when we are driving on the highway, we must obey the relevant traffic regulations, such as not driving after drinking and not speeding, or else an traffic accident is likely to damage our own and other people’s lives. Only in this way can we be safe and enjoy the convenience of travelling by car.

On the other hand, more importantly, we should realize that legal systems are not perfect and also have flaws, like other things in the world. Those flawed or unfair laws are called the unjust laws and obeying unjust laws without any question would cause bad result because the unjust laws often ignore the interests of certain groups and benefit those in power. For example, when Germany was controlled by the Hitler administration, many laws aiming to harm the Jews were made at that time, and those laws were carried out by so called national police. It is well known that thousands of Jews were killed in Germany and more people had to leave their hometowns. The result was caused by Hitler's crude action in most part, but the public accepting those unjust laws made by the government worse the situation to certain extent. The fact has informed us that obeying unjust and unfair laws could make those in power unchecked.

Actually, the society can gain progress when we disobey and resist unjust laws. Like the progress of study, students should not only accept the right knowledge given by teachers but also question about the flawed information, then they can learn the real and most knowledge. For example, it is Martin Luther King that encouraged the black people in the USA to resist those unfair laws and regulations, such as black people should sit in the special areas on bus and can not sit with the white at cinema. The final result, as we have seen, is that the African-Americans have equal rights with other people and the USA becomes more democratic.

In sum, as an individual in society, we have responsibility to obey just laws in order to keep the society in order, further more, disobeying and resisting unjust laws is also necessary. Because of
making the society gain progress through improving our legal system, the latter is more important.  .

天边一朵云UID: 2157330

这是我的第一篇issue,好痛苦啊，写了两个晚上，一个晚上想思路，一个晚上写，现在才交作业。。。
提纲：
1）分类太草率
2）对于不正义（违反道德标准的）法律应当违反
3）如果抵抗会带来的后果

issue17
Law, by definition, is the body of official rules and regulations, generally found in constitutions, legislation, judicial opinions, and the like, and  is used to govern a society and to control the behavior of its members. There are varieties of ways to deivide laws into different categories such as laws against crimes and  property and contract laws. Therefore,  it is too abrupt to generalize laws into simply two types: just and unjust since everyone has his or her own standard to judge the validity of the laws. Besides, whether to disobey the unjust laws and resort to what kind of approaches is worth discussing.

On the first place, to categorize laws as just and unjust is insufficient subjective. On the first hand,as we all know, Law serves a variety of functions. Laws against crimes, for example, help to maintain a peaceful, orderly, relatively stable society by punish criminals. Property and contract laws facilitate business activities and private planning. Civil laws regulates peoples's behavior in daily life on various aspects, including education ,welfare, marrige and so forth. Constitution is a set of political principal lay down to government people. On the other hand, there's no specific definition as which law is just and which is not since a law that is just to one group of people may at the same time be unjust to another group. For example, a law that enforce a paper-made company to shut down all its unqualified factory for the consideration of protecting environment may violates the interests of the employees but at the same time, local general environment is damaged. Another good example is the discrimination laws in the early 20th century in US. In those days, it is legal for stores to put up humiliating racial signs and for public amusement park to close to colored children. It is crystal clear that this law benefited white people but humiliated those black people. From this we can see, people judge a law as just or not by whether it does good to their own interests or not.

On the second place, if the law is against human moral standards, then it is totally necessary to fight against it. Take the discrimination laws cited previously as an example again. Just as the famous quotation of Martin Luther King:“ Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”, this law distorts the soul and damages the personality and gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority, so although the white people accounts for the majority of its total population, black people should stand up and break this law to call for equality. Under this circumstances, disobeying the unjust law is of vital importance because it endows people the right to fight for freedom, morality,liberty and will push the wheels of human progress forward.

Finally, overemphasizing the importance of disobeying unjust laws may bring about some beat all problems. For instance, some people may abuse it as an excuse to gain benefit for themselves while ignoring other’s interests. The effect may multiply and contribute to a decline in law and order. In an extreme case, it may lead to civil war. Besides, since there’s no clear standards of what kind of laws are just, people may argue over some tough issues thus lead to a chaos in the society. The law that legalize homosexual marriage and abortion set an good example for this argument.


To sum up, to classify laws into just and unjust is too cursory. We need to check whether it complys to human ethic system.  If not , then we should encourage people to unite together and break it. Of course, we should also be aware of the probable consequences.
626 words

AnddieUID: 2135826

FT~~电脑又坏了~~
这篇是临时补写的

kind of a tough issue

观点：有保留的赞成

提纲：1、每个人都有责任遵守公正的法律（法律的本质+现实的例子）
         2、每个人都有责任反对和抵抗不公正的法律
                  a。不公正的法律维护少数人的利益，这可能引起社会的不稳定因素
                  b。反抗不公正所进行的革命是社会进步的动力
                  c。平等是人生来就应该具有的权利
         3、由于人对于公正的认识上的差异，题目的论断在实施的过程中尚存在问题       


It is not easy for people to reach an agreement on the attitude toward laws. Generally, I hold the same point of view as the statement that individuals have responsibilities to obey just laws and to disobey even resist unjust laws; although there are still problems to be considered when the statement is put into practice.

To begin with, it is everyone’s responsibilities to obey the laws. Radically, laws are the regulations that all the people in the society established. And just laws are the laws that may bring benefits to the whole society, although benefits not to everyone. Hence, to obey the laws is to bring good to the whole society, which is every individual’s responsibility. We take the business laws as an example. The business laws are constituted to limit the activities that merchants may involve in and it is comparatively just. Without business laws, most businessmen would do whatever they want to gain the profits and would bring great harm to the whole country’s economy system.

In addition, a more important responsibility of an individual is to disobey and resist unjust laws. Since laws serve the people who made it, there is no way in which we may guarantee that laws are just to everyone. There are three reasons to justify men’s disobedience against unjust laws. First, unjust laws tend to converge power and fortunes at a few people, people who make the laws and hold the power of country; and this might lead to an unsteady society if is left alone. This is proved by nearly all the revolutions and violent actions around the world, both nowadays and in history. Second, revolutions that are, in some way, caused by people’s resistance against unjust laws are great propulsions of the progress of civilization. From the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain to the French Revolution, both the two countries managed to create a new and better constitution and later become the most powerful countries in the world. Thirdly, according to the traditional viewpoints of Christian, all men are born equal, regardless of their races, genders or nationalities. Thus, it is quite reasonable for people’s being against unjust laws to fight for equality, the basic right that God favors us.

However, the validity of the statement should not blind us to the problems that may arise after we apply it to practice. One of the problems is the distinctions between people’s opinions on just laws and unjust laws. Since different people have different requests and attitudes to life, laws that are just in someone’s eyes might become unjust to others. For instance, the human rights that Chinese have are insufficient through Americans' eyes, as a result of different countries’ constitutions. Then Chinese laws become unjust, from an American’s point of view, while most Chinese don’t think so. So it is quite significant to clarify the standard of just laws and unjust laws.

In summary, as a member of the society, everyone has a responsibility to make it better. One of the way of doing so is to obey the just laws and disobey the unjust ones. The problems sticking in the way will be solved as long as people keep on chasing their dreams for just laws, because it is not only the viewpoints people hold that matters, but also the development of the human civilization and society that demands. I would rather believe that it is everyone's duty and obligation to treat differently to just and unjust laws.

[ 本帖最后由 Anddie 于 2006-5-10 12:40 编辑 ]

yuviUID: 2169411

The speaker contends that laws are divided into two types one type is just and the other is unjust ,and also asserts that Every individual has a duty to not only obey just laws but also to disobey and resist unjust laws. I agree with the discrimination between laws. Nevertheless, I think that whether people disobey and resist unjust laws or not should depend on some conditions.
提纲：1、公正的法律和不公正的法律是基于利益的基础上来划分的。(同意)
      2、反对不公平的法律可能会带来很多问题。
      3、不反对不公平的法律的好处。
（后面两个论点写得像ARGUMENT的提纲阿。。）
Firstly,   just laws or unjust laws may be defined on the basis of profits.（感觉用interests好一些吧。Profits一般是实在的利润挨） Because every form of consciousness in society must have its own laws（这句话用中文想还好，写成英文很空洞。。）. every country has its own laws ,in almost every aspect, to maintain the function of nation. However, not all laws are just or unjust, when the laws serve as deputies of most of people's profits ,people who benefit from these laws perhaps can think that they are just in one country, and when the laws have a function to profit one country all over the world, the country maybe consider that the laws are just（论据写得有argument 的影子）. I think that the author's viewpoint that laws can be separated into just and unjust two types maybe rely on the foundation above.（第一段没有实在的论据，观点还可以了）
Secondly, disobeying and resisting unjust laws perhaps leads to severe problems, such as the country's chaos, people's lives will be in danger and so on（典型的argument思维）. As far as we know,  one country's existence  mainly depends on the effects of laws（国家的存在取决于法律的作用？我想只能说法律在国家的存在中占据了很多的作用吧。。）, although laws may be not rational in some aspects（什么方面呢？？没有论据支持）. Nevertheless, if we disobey and  resist unjust laws, perhaps there will be some constitutions to be cancelled（又没有论据支持）, therefore, country's certain projects（projects？晕。。） will be disordered, and even all  the country will be in the chaos triggered by disobeying and resisting unjust laws（这一段都是你的主观假设和臆断）. or if the country takes action to beat down persons who disobey and resist unjust laws in order to prevent its normal run from being disturbed, for example, the country may dictate forces to put down those persons who disobey and resist unjust laws or put them into jails. （最后一句用for example结尾？……而且还是不具体的抽象例子。）
Thirdly, obeying unjust laws may give us a lot of benefits.（这不是鼓动人们革命暴动？？？） Unjust laws are important parts of country's laws,（第一个论点刚说unjust law与人们的利益相冲突，现在又成重要的parts了？） so we obey them means to maintain country's stability（遵守不公平的法律等于保证国家稳定。。什么逻辑呵？？）. Some  laws were unjust in one historical times while they were just in other historical times,（这句还像点样子） although these laws in one historical times were unjust, people could live in  happy lives（happy lives都出来了，呵呵，看来PK被这篇文章折磨得不轻了。。） because of their existence, maybe they provided a balance between people and government.

In sum, the author's view that there are just and unjust laws is reasonable（说reasonable好象很勉强承认法律是公平/不公平的）, but his or her conclusion that  Every individual has a duty to not only obey just laws but also to disobey and resist unjust laws deserves to  deeply ponder. maybe we should disobey and resist unjust laws on a case-by-case basis.


总结：

呵呵，我这次出手太重pk不要被我拍晕了哈。
整篇文章都是argument的影子。没有实际的论据，论点提得也让人匪夷所思。前面第1点我同意，第2点勉强同意，第3点就觉得莫名其妙了哈。。
而且前后不一致的话也有：比如第一个论点刚说unjust law与人们的利益相冲突，到第三点又成国家的重要部分了。没有实际的论据支持，这样的话很难让人信服。。论点站不住脚，无论据支持。还有一些主观的臆断。其实你有的论点完全可以有空间展开的很好的,比如“法律的划分基于利益的基础”，或者“历史上不公平的法律在另外的时期判断会不一样”等等，但是感觉你现在写issue的套路还没有形成哈。所以没有把握住这些论点。

就立论文（issue）和驳论文（argument）来比较，最重要的就是要自圆其说，找到论据来支持自己的观点。因为立论文的话题通常都是抽象的东西，所以很容易写成全篇都是流水帐。这个时候就应该化虚为实，想一些具体的例子出来支持你的论点。比如在写提纲的时候进行brainstorm，把所有与“法律公平/不公平”有关的例子都写在纸上，然后再来安排它们与文章论点的对应关系。

其实我这篇文章也写得异常痛苦。关提纲就写了1个多小时（见笑了哈）。下次大家可以试一下先写个超级详细的大提纲，再动笔。（汗。。好象两种文章的提纲都很重要啊。。我们组每周要不要再加几个提纲的任务挨？）

yuviUID: 2169411

鉴于这次有没有交作业的同学，所以第二次互改顺序调整如下：

天边一朵云 ---> yuvi
yuvi ---> jiqixueyuan
jiqixueyuan ---> kittywen_16
kittywen_16 ---> Anddie
anddie ---> glxing
glxing ---> 天边一朵云

大家加油。。。

yuviUID: 2169411

我大概看了一下。好多人写得像argument啊。。
根据《北美范文》里说，ETS曾经明确表示过，如果考生把issue写成了argument的题目，也就是挑题目的逻辑错误的话，那么就属于不符合考试要求，毕竟他们考察的方向是不一样的。——p.84（也就是这篇的讲解里的，老美写的时候也有argument的影子）

glxingUID: 2156425

原帖由 yuvi 于 2006-5-10 10:36 发表
The speaker contends that laws are divided into two types one type is just and the other is unjust ,and also asserts that Every individual has a duty to not only obey just laws but also to disobey  ...

芹菜总结的很对

AnddieUID: 2135826

原帖由 yuvi 于 2006-5-10 10:52 发表
我大概看了一下。好多人写得像argument啊。。
根据《北美范文》里说，ETS曾经明确表示过，如果考生把issue写成了argument的题目，也就是挑题目的逻辑错误的话，那么就属于不符合考试要求，毕竟他们考察的方向是不 ...

迷惑。。。

什么样的issue才能算是不像argument呢？
argument的典型特征是什么？

issue的题目比较短是很难去挑逻辑错误的
如果反对观点应该找哪些错误呢？

yuviUID: 2169411

原帖由 Anddie 于 2006-5-10 19:13 发表


迷惑。。。

什么样的issue才能算是不像argument呢？
argument的典型特征是什么？

issue的题目比较短是很难去挑逻辑错误的
如果反对观点应该找哪些错误呢？

issue就是立论文,argument是驳论文.
一个是让你就一个话题提出观点,一个是让你反驳现有的逻辑错误..
题目长短和挑逻辑错误没有什么关系阿..
如果你要反对话题当然不应该找错误,而是要找一些论据来支持你反对的观点.

不知道我有没有把大家给饶晕了..
:)
不然我们在坛子上再开一个新贴请其他人也来讨论下吧

glxingUID: 2156425

小蜗牛批改天边一朵云

1）分类太草率
2）对于不正义（违反道德标准的）法律应当违反
3）如果抵抗会带来的后果

issue17
Law, by definition, is the body of official rules and regulations, generally found in constitutions, legislation, judicial opinions, and the like, and  is used to govern a society and to control the behavior of its members. 这一句其实不连贯，可否改成这样Law, defined as the body of official rules and regulations, is generally found There are varieties of ways to deivide divide 没用word检查把 laws into different categories such as laws against crimes and  property and contract laws. Therefore,  it is too abrupt to generalize laws into simply two types: just and unjust since everyone has his or her own standard to judge the validity of the laws. Besides, whether to disobey the unjust laws and resort to what kind of approaches is worth discussing.

Oninthe first place, to categorize laws as just and unjust is insufficient subjective. On the first hand,好像是on the one handas we all know, that Law serves a variety of functions. Laws against crimes, for example, help to maintain a peaceful, orderly, relatively stable society by punish criminals. Property and contract laws facilitate business activities and private planning. Civil laws regulates peoples's behavior in daily life on various aspects, including education ,welfare, marrige and so forth. Constitution is a set of political principal lay down to government people.这儿衔接不好，法律有多种功能，是，那又怎么样呢？这与把法律分为善法恶法有矛盾吗，没有吧，我从另一个角度将法律再次划分难道不可以吗？这一层意思其实不要也罢 On the other hand, there's no specific definition as which law is just and which is not since a law that is just to one group of people may at the same time be unjust to another group. For example, a law that enforce a paper-made company改成 paper manufacturing industry 好一些 to shut down all its unqualified factory for the consideration of protecting environment may violates the interests of the employees but at the same time, local general environment is damaged. 关掉造纸厂环境怎么会恶化呢？可以改成“a law that enforces the paper manufacturing industry to cut down all its unqualified factories for protecting environment would violate the interest of thousands of employees and be judged as unjust law by them, but at the same time, the  local residents will benefit from the improved environment and appreciate this law as just law ”Another good example is the discrimination laws in the early 20th century in US. In those days, it is legal for stores to put up humiliating racial signs 是这样吗？要我写肯定是 humiliating signs about racial discrimination ,呵呵and for public amusement park to close to colored children. It is crystal clear只用clear也可以吧 that this law benefited white people but humiliated those black people. From this we can see, people judge a law as just or not by whether it does good to their own interests or not.

On the second place, if the law is against human moral standards, then it is totally necessary to fight against it. Take the discrimination laws cited previously as an example again. Just as the famous quotation of Martin Luther King:“ Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”, this law distorts the soul and damages the personality and gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority,这句话好面熟啊，使老外280篇上的吧 so although the white people accounts for the majority of its total population, black people should stand up and break this law to call for equality. Under this circumstances, disobeying the unjust law is of vital importance because it谁赐予？上帝吗，呵呵 ，是不是“it makes  people get deserved freedom,morality,liberty ”endows people the right to fight for freedom, morality,liberty and will push the wheels of human progress forward.

Finally, overemphasizing the importance of disobeying unjust laws may bring about some beat all problems. For instance, some people may abuse it as an excuse to gain benefit for themselves while ignoring other’s interests. The effect may multiply and contribute to a decline in law and order.这一句我觉得有点怪，但貌似地道的英语，所以我也不敢妄加评论了，呵呵，被一堆华丽的词语吓住了 In an extreme case, it may lead to civil war. Besides, since there’s no clear standards of what kind of laws are just, people may argue over some tough issues thus lead to a chaos in the society. The law that legalize homosexual marriage and abortion set an good example for this argument.这一句就是说有些人认为善，有些人认为恶，我觉得应该归结为第一段“分类太草率”，还有怎么出来了argument呢，这算不算芹菜所说的“写成了argument”?

To sum up, to classify laws into just and unjust is too cursory. We need to check whether it complys to human ethic system.  If not , then we should encourage people to unite together and break it. Of course, we should also be aware of the probable consequences 恩，总结的倒是中规中矩，挺稳妥。

给你个4.5分吧，呵呵，继续努力。。。。

天边一朵云UID: 2157330

我来改小芹菜的

态度：有保留的赞同。
（法律的公正性需要多方面的判断，当一个价值体系中的法律被大多数成员反对时，其存在也不会成为长久的事情。）
论点：
1）        判断法律是否公正取决于不同背景下的不同价值体系
a．个人道德和利益。（举例：堕胎，一夫多妻）
b．在特定时期的国家利益。（中国的独生子女政策）
2）        法律在一定程度上，能够体现出一个特定社会里大部分人的共同意识
a．        法律的公正性被大多数人质疑时，其存在也不会长久。（十九世纪酷刑的消失）
b．法律随着人类社会的进步而完善。（同性恋婚姻的合法化）
3）        一个国家的法律由许多立法及辅助机构管理（福柯关于知识/权力论的一段话）


Whether a law just or unjust, depends on what value system it existing in, whether it matches most individuals' morals and interests in this value system, and moreover, under which period of human beings' development.

First of all, there are two types of law - just and unjust, however, the just（justice） of law depends on varies(various) value systems which from the every single individuals' moral notions and their personal interests in many different culture backgrounds.(这句话语法错误，而且要表达的意思不清楚) Consider, for example, the issue of abortion in some particular religious countries has to be seen（been regarded） as (illegal, issue 不应该和法律对应) while in many other value systems（it） is viewing(viewed) as just. The same happens with polygamy issue. In Islam culture, polygamy has been applied for thousands years of many Middle East countries, however, most of other countries nowadays are supporting monogamy as just( laws) but polygamy as unjust law. (这是一个不错的例子)

Moreover, there is another consideration about the fairness of law under a nation's interest. The One Child Policy in China is a good example at here（多余） in today's world, while most developed countries and poverty（impoverished） countries do not set limitation on how many children their citizen would like to have, the developing country, China, established One Child Policy as long-term strategy for both her economy and resource developments. Therefore, the fairness of the law is not an object decision, but rather a subjectivity chosen from people's morals and interests within their different backgrounds under some particular periods. (这句话用了很多介词，感觉意思表达不清，而且用的很勉强)
Because the law to some extent shows the collectivity needs for a society, therefore, while the fairness of a law has been challenged by most individuals, then such law could not be a just one in the further look. For instance, the disappearance of the torture punishment in the nineteen-century（无谓语）, and a more gentle way - prison penalty has been widely（used） instead in most countries followed by the progresses of civilization and humanitarianism. Even nowadays,there are（删）many areas in the world have banned dead penalty in their laws. To compare with the old time, executions used to be held in public as just for culprits' crimes.（不懂是什么意思。。。）

In the same sense, the consummation of the law also followed by the development of human beings' society. Consider, take the legalization of homosexual marriage for example. In nowadays, some countries have announced for the acknowledgement of homosexual marriage. While if this happens in ancient age, it might be seen as unjust which limited base on people's reorganization of the whole world.（汗，还是看不懂，base是动词）

In short, law always been changed and consummated as time goes, while putting an old unjust law in today's consideration, it might be a just one. Therefore, the fairness of a law also depends on the different periods in human beings’ history.（这一段段首句和段尾句衔接不上）
According to the most enforcing thinker in today's Western societies, Michel Foucault concludes (and I paraphrased): "The law of a nation working on the legal power which established by knowledge as the fundamental governmantality, this operating system contains not only the technology of the knowledge management, but also other assistant institutions." Therefore, it is clear to see a single individual helps less in the resistance of a law. What is more, while the purpose of resistance made by a huge range of people, the unjust law might no longer existing in that society.（感觉引的话和主题联系不深，或者没有深入讨论，只是引了后再硬往主题拉）To define whether a law just or unjust, needs many considerations around the varies backgrounds under different periods, a single person's resistance will not influence the law straightforward, however, while a law does not accord with most individuals' morals and interests in a particular period, the unjust law under this particular value system might no longer existing in the further development of the society.

总结：1、文章中用了不少有难度的词（偶都不认识），值得学习
      2、语法错误较多，感觉是为了写出长句子而拼凑，不连贯，像是直接从中文翻译）
      3、文章之讨论了法律的正义与否应分情况，而没有讨论是否应该反抗，在最后两段只是几个句子陈述，并没有深入讨论，所以显得有点跑题

拍小芹菜有点狠，别介意哦！:D这篇文章我写的时候也想了很久，感觉思路很混乱，所以希望和大家讨论下。

[ 本帖最后由 天边一朵云 于 2006-5-10 21:02 编辑 ]

AnddieUID: 2135826

尽管我也在迷惑中
不过还是开拍了哈~~

蜗牛兄的：

提纲：1，支持  agree
      2， on the one hand, we should obey just laws not only for the stableness of society but also for our own interests.  The traffic laws.一方面，对于善法我们应当遵守，既有利于他人也有利于自己。交通规则
      3，on the other hand, the flawed and unfair laws is necessary to exist. Obeying them without questioning can cause some bad results. The Hitler administration made many laws aiming to harm the Jews. 另一方面，更重要的，对于恶法，因为其不公或是有纰漏，如果盲目的服从会带来不好的结果，希特勒时期的德国
      4，Actually, if we resist those unjust laws, the legislators would have to change the unjust laws and then society can gain progress. Martin Luther King 并且，如果不服从或违抗，就会迫使当局改变。马丁路德金
      5,结尾

What should we do about[with] laws, obeying or resisting without any criticism? In fact[为什么要用这个词组？], as the author mentions, there are two types of laws and every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws, moreover, the latter one is more important.[第一段你原想提出自己的观点吧，可是从文字上看却在复述作者的观点。关键还是在in fact那里。]

On the[no the] one hand, we should obey just laws not only for the stableness of society but also for our own interests. [to obey laws for our interests?] The just laws, defined as fair regulations which consider most or even all people's interest and rights when they are made, has the function of keeping the society in order. Without obeying such laws the society[主语错误] would fall into chaos and in turn, our own rights and even life would be in harm,[life in harm与stableness of society的关系没有说明] so as an individual in society, we have a responsibility to obey them.[so后面的结论没有理由，因为你前面只说明了不遵守会带来的坏处，并没有说明遵守之后就不存在这种坏处了。从逻辑的角度来讲结论是完全不成立的。] For example, when we are driving on the highway, we must obey the relevant traffic regulations, such as not driving after drinking and not speeding, or else an traffic accident is likely to damage our own and other people’s lives. Only in this way can we be safe and enjoy the convenience of travelling by car.[感觉这一段的论证比较苍白，首句提出的interests没有证明，况且其本身的正确性也有问题。在论证上始终没有正面说明，并且前面关于law的定义与后面的内容的关系还需进一步说明。]

On the other hand, more importantly, we should realize that legal systems are not perfect and also have flaws, like other things in the world. [观点问题：unjust仅仅来自于不perfect的laws？ Nothing is perfect。 那么是不是所有的就没有just的law啦？]Those flawed or unfair laws are called the unjust laws and obeying unjust laws without any question would cause bad result because the unjust laws often ignore the interests[与interest关系很小吧？] of certain groups and benefit those in power. [前面的论证和后面的例子好像没什么关系。] For example, when Germany was controlled by the Hitler administration, many laws aiming to harm the Jews were made at that time, and those laws were carried out by so called national police. It is well known that thousands of Jews were killed in Germany and more people had to leave their hometowns. The result was caused by Hitler's crude action in most part, but the public [‘s] accepting those unjust laws made by the government worse the situation to certain extent. [从本句看你所强调的并不是后者] The fact has informed us that obeying unjust and unfair laws could make those in power unchecked.[power unchecked又与本段的论点有什么关系？应明确说明。]  [本段的例子有一个隐患：当时的民众是否对hitler是支持的？如果是的话，那并不是obey unjust laws，因为对于他们来说law是just的。]

Actually, the society can gain progress when we disobey and resist unjust laws. Like the progress of study, [很重大的问题：因果关系。unjust laws的并不是制定法律的初衷，人们并不是专门制定unjust laws来换来社会革命以取得进步的]students should not only accept the right knowledge given by teachers but also question about the flawed information, then they can learn the real and most knowledge.[个人觉得有错误的学习材料不会使人进步太多，因为使人进步的是提问，而不是材料的误导] For example, it is Martin Luther King that encouraged the black people in the USA to resist those unfair laws and regulations, such as black people should sit in the special areas on bus and can not sit with the white at cinema.[语法问题] The final result, as we have seen, is that the African-Americans[用black就可以] have equal rights with other people[这一点应该说得再严谨些，当前美国黑白人并不平等] and the USA becomes more democratic.

In sum, as an individual in society, we have responsibility to obey just laws in order to keep the society in order, further more, disobeying and resisting unjust laws is also necessary. Because of
making the society gain progress through improving our legal system, the latter is more important.[最后一句没看明白]

总结：
1．        首先考虑到是限时的，在这一点上，蜗牛同学比我要强很多。目前45min之内我是绝对写不完的。PFPF~~
2．        对于全文的结构，我觉得还是不错的，但事实上我对于issue的写法也在confuse中。可以听听芹菜的意见。
3．        对于每个分论点，我觉得本文在论证的过程上还是有比较大问题的。句与句之间的逻辑关系，例子与论点的关系，还有观点和例子本身的合理性都有待商权。另外，文章通篇都在用反证法，正面的直接论述很少，为什么一定要这样呢？
4．        语言上，错误还是比较多的。但由于是限时，这一点可以理解，相信glxing会越做越好的。
:p

glxingUID: 2156425

怎么没人给我改呢？