issue17 宝贝小猪交作业了，呵呵，求拍

宝贝小猪UID：2135340

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."
提纲：
    1，作者太过于局限的把法律定义为了正义法律和非正义法律，正义和非正义而言都是相对的，一个法律在一个人严重可能是正义的但是换成另外一个人，就可能是非正义的了
    2，法律并不像人们想象的那样是一成不变的正义和非正义是一个变化的概念，首先，正义的概念是随着传统和其他条件而变的，其次，非正义也是随着因素而改变的
    3，同样的过分强调人们遵守正义和抵制非正义的东西，也会造成一些问题，对于非正义的法律我们不一定要采取强硬抵制的态度，可以把自己的想法上报；


At first glance at the speaker's issue, law is defined as two categories which are just laws and unjust laws. And the most important thing put forward by the speaker is to disobey and resist the unjust laws. However I believe that this definition is so constrained that it seems overlook the influence makes to people.

Law is a conception with wide boundary and the speaker just defined it as just laws and unjust laws which seem too limited. Law is the regulation made by certain of people, which on behalf of the populace, to regulate people's behavior. So that is to say it is hard to define whether a law is just or unjust. Whereas the just and unjust laws are abstract conceptions which have different definitions with dissimilar people. It is entire possible that a law is just to one but it becomes unjust to another. So the laws cannot be defined as just and unjust ones in light of the vague definitions of just and unjust.

Further more, laws does not unchanged as people think. Because just and unjust are abstract conceptions, it entire possible that laws will change or develop as the time elapses. First, the item "just" is going to vary greatly according to different traditions, costume and other conditions. Take abortion for example, in ancient times abortion is acknowledged to be not permitted by public because abortion had much to do with the mother and the baby. However, in modern ages, abortion can be exerted at any time of the year. It was believed abortion is the private affairs which are up to the couple. While, it is precisely the same when it comes to the unjust law, such as computer crime. Undoubtedly, laws alter with different factors, so we cannot look on a problem at a static stage.

However, unduly emphasizing people to resist the unjust laws also spell certain kinds of risks. Compelling all the people unconditional accept and obey the just laws may in some sense impede the process of the democracy in the nation. In addition, it may also undermine the fundamental influence of the traditional value systems upon the human society. As is so often pointed out that the regulations and laws is just a manifestation of the value and standard of the human civilizations. In this respect, inculcating people with the traditional value systems are far more important than compel them within the bound of the law. Even if laws are defined as just and unjust ones, however we cannot disobey and resist unjust laws because as long as they were defined as the laws all the people have the obligation conform to it. What’s more if unjust law is truly unjust, people cannot resist to it. What we should do is to put forward our opinions to the government which can be the delicate way to solve it.

In summary, as one of the crucial elements of modern society, the laws have to be served as the guidance for almost all the citizens to live and work in a right way and also provide them with a stabilized climate.Thus we cannot define laws as just and unjust ones simplely even adopt a extreamily tactic--resisit to the unjust laws.

shielUID：2140229

小猪, jj来了,

coffee刚开张的时候,我也弄过这个题目哦

shielUID：2140229

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."
提纲：
    1，作者太过于局限的把法律定义为了正义法律和非正义法律，正义和非正义而言都是相对的，一个法律在一个人严重可能是正义的但是换成另外一个人，就可能是非正义的了
    2，法律并不像人们想象的那样是一成不变的正义和非正义是一个变化的概念，首先，正义的概念是随着传统和其他条件而变的，其次，非正义也是随着因素而改变的
    3，同样的过分强调人们遵守正义和抵制非正义的东西，也会造成一些问题，对于非正义的法律我们不一定要采取强硬抵制的态度，可以把自己的想法上报；

(看起来,1和2在论述"just and unjust laws"的存在性; 3则分析了"obey or disobey")

At first glance at the speaker's issue, law is (laws are) defined as two categories which are just laws and unjust laws. And the most important thing put forward by the speaker is to disobey and resist the unjust laws. However I believe that this definition is so constrained that it seems overlook the influence makes to people.

Law is a conception with wide boundary and the speaker just defined it as just laws and unjust laws which seem too limited. Law is the regulation made by certain of people, which on behalf of the populace, to regulate people's behavior. So that is to say it is hard to define whether a law is just or unjust. Whereas the just and unjust laws are abstract conceptions which have different definitions with dissimilar people. It is entire possible that a law is just to one but it becomes unjust to another. So the laws cannot be defined as just and unjust ones in light of the vague definitions of just and unjust.

Further more, laws does not unchanged as people (应该是作者的想法吧?) think. Because just and unjust are abstract conceptions (the concepts of just and unjust are so abstract), it entire possible that laws will change or develop as the time elapses. First, the item "just" is going to vary greatly according to different traditions, costume and other conditions. Take abortion for example, in ancient times abortion is acknowledged to be not permitted by public because abortion had much to do with the mother and the baby. However, in modern ages, abortion can be exerted at any time of the year. It was believed abortion is the private affairs which are up to the couple. While, it is precisely the same when it comes to the unjust law, such as computer crime. Undoubtedly, laws alter with different factors, so we cannot look on a problem at a static stage.

However, unduly emphasizing people to resist the unjust laws also spell certain kinds of risks. Compelling all the people unconditional accept and obey the just laws may in some sense impede the process of the democracy in the nation. In addition, it may also undermine the fundamental influence of the traditional value systems upon the human society. As is so often pointed out that the regulations and laws is just a manifestation of the value and standard of the human civilizations. In this respect, inculcating people with the traditional value systems are far more important than compel them within the bound of the law. Even if laws are defined as just and unjust ones, however we cannot disobey and resist unjust laws because as long as they were defined as the laws all the people have the obligation conform to it. What’s more if unjust law is truly unjust, people cannot resist to it. What we should do is to put forward our opinions to the government which can be the delicate way to solve it.

In summary, as one of the crucial elements of modern society, the laws have to be served as the guidance for almost all the citizens to live and work in a right way and also provide them with a stabilized climate.Thus we cannot define laws as just and unjust ones simplely even adopt a extreamily tactic--resisit to the unjust laws.

不行了, 看法律的好费劲, jj先歇歇啊, ==再看

kito9695UID：209685

up~小猪加油~有空的话帮你改哈~

abobibbyUID：2174676

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."
提纲：
    1，作者太过于局限的把法律定义为了正义法律和非正义法律，正义和非正义而言都是相对的，一个法律在一个人严重可能是正义的但是换成另外一个人，就可能是非正义的了
    2，法律并不像人们想象的那样是一成不变的正义和非正义是一个变化的概念，首先，正义的概念是随着传统和其他条件而变的，其次，非正义也是随着因素而改变的
    3，同样的过分强调人们遵守正义和抵制非正义的东西，也会造成一些问题，对于非正义的法律我们不一定要采取强硬抵制的态度，可以把自己的想法上报；


At first glance at the speaker's issue, law is defined as two categories which are just laws and unjust laws. And the most important thing put forward by the speaker is to disobey and resist the unjust laws. However I believe that this definition is so constrained that it seems overlook the influence makes to people.

Law is a conception with wide boundary and the speaker just defined it as just laws and unjust laws which seem too limited.（是不是考虑换个词儿？too limited  不太清晰阿） Law is the regulation made by certain of people, which on behalf of the populace, to regulate people's behavior. So that is to say it is hard to define whether a law is just or unjust. Whereas the just and unjust laws are abstract conceptions which have different definitions with dissimilar people. It is entire possible that a law is just to one but it becomes unjust to another. So the laws cannot be defined as just and unjust ones in light of the vague definitions of just and unjust.

Further more, laws does not unchanged as people think. Because just and unjust are abstract conceptions, it entire possible that laws will change or develop as the time elapses. First, the item "just" is going to vary greatly according to different traditions, costume and other conditions. Take abortion for example, in ancient times abortion is acknowledged to be not permitted by public because abortion had much to do with the mother and the baby. （啥意思？）However, in modern ages, abortion can be exerted at any time of the year.(事实不是这样的） It was believed abortion is the private affairs which are up to the couple. While, it is precisely the same when it comes to the unjust law, such as computer crime. Undoubtedly, laws alter with different factors, so we cannot look on a problem at a static stage.

However, unduly emphasizing people to resist the unjust laws also spell certain kinds of risks. Compelling all the people unconditional accept and obey the just laws may in some sense impede the process of the democracy in the nation. In. A addition, it may also undermine the fundamental influence of the traditional value systems upon the human societys is so often pointed out that the regulations and laws is just a manifestation of the value and standard of the human civilizations. In this respect, inculcating people with the traditional value systems are far more important than compel them within the bound of the law. Even if laws are defined as just and unjust ones, however we cannot disobey and resist unjust laws because as long as they were defined as the laws all the people have the obligation conform to it. What’s more if unjust law is truly unjust, people cannot resist to it. What we should do is to put forward our opinions to the government which can be the delicate way to solve it. （受中式教育影响过大了吧？）
这一段稍微写的有点乱，感觉论证分不清层次
In summary, as one of the crucial elements of modern society, the laws have to be served as the guidance for almost all the citizens to live and work in a right way and also provide them with a stabilized climate.Thus we cannot define laws as just and unjust ones simplely even adopt a extreamily tactic--resisit to the unjust laws.