issue17 有拍必回-请留链接

fishjoyUID：2116013

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."（高频）
Outline:
1.        法律不能迁就少数人的是非判断标准
2.        法律是社会秩序稳定的保障，有任何一个触犯了法律却没有遭到惩罚的先例，后果多极其严重。
3.        对不公平的法律条例，在当今民主社会用民主的方法解决，而不是采取抵抗——恢旨?菀滓?⒈┝Φ耐揪丁?
说明：历时1小时40分，比上一篇少5分钟。496words.
正文：
A law is a law. In our contemporary democratic society, whether a law is just or unjust can never depend on a single person’s answer. Even if unjust law did exist and hurt the public’s benefit, there is always another democratic way to solve the problem instead of disobeying and resisting laws which might develop to an uncontrolled consequence.
First, in our contemporary democratic society, a law that gives way to certain people’s standards of just and unjust, of course, is no longer a law, at least a just law, since the legislation of law based on benefits of the public. The standard of just and unjust differs in different people, and even the standard of one certain person varied under dissimilar circumstances. For instance, a thief broke into a house, but was caught before he could get anything and then was sentenced to a punishment. An irrelevant person might think that the punishment was too severe for the thief since he did not get anything. But the housemaster might think in a reverse way that the just had shown too much mercy on the thief so that the sentence was unjust. If the housemaster had not met such a thing, he might never have cared what punishment a thief would get.
Second, if laws, most of which does ensure the stability of our society, or even if unjust laws as some people think, were disobeyed or even resisted by some people who would receive uncritical or even little punishments consequentially, the law system of our democratic society would collapse one day, just as T. Fuller said: “A small leak will sink a great ship.” If a so-called unjust law can be disobeyed and resisted, what about the so-called just law? Could they be also disobeyed and resisted just like the so-called unjust law since they are both laws and legislated for people to obey? A law is broken today and another law is broken tomorrow, and then what will happen the day after tomorrow?
Third, there is always another safer and more democratic way to solve the unjust law problem if the majority of our society regard a law is unjust. It is no longer the society where the Holy Office held people’s tongue and burned the heretics to death in the Rome Flower Square. A law that hurts the interests of the public can be varied or even abolished in the legislature which stands for the benefit of the majority of our society at least to some extent. In America, it is the parliament; in China, it is 人大代表大会。
To sum up, it is hard to define a law whether it is just or unjust on the basis of very few people’s standards. In no condition should a law whether it is considered just or unjust be disobeyed or resisted, otherwise a more serious social law system problem would emerge and cover the initial unjust law problem entirely.

[ Last edited by fishjoy on 2005-7-28 at 15:19 ]

hoosooyooUID：186562

第一段A law is a law.似乎是废话
depend on a single person's answer 表达不太好
最后一句有语病（develop to an uncontrolled consequency,）
第一段最好总结the speaker 's statement ,用长句表明自己的观点，太深入的话留在论述段内讲

第二段 The standard of just and unjust differs in different people,改为The standard is subjective.并且最好写进长句里
and even the standard of one certain person 改为and even the personal standard

第四段   In America, it is the parliament; in China, it is 人大代表大会。的位置不对,且需要过渡

hoosooyooUID：186562

加油！！！

fishjoyUID：2116013

谢谢楼上指点
留个链接吧:)

fishjoyUID：2116013

我稍微修改了一下，又贴上来了:)
    A law is a law. In our contemporary democratic society, whether a law is just or unjust can never be determined by a single person’s answer. Even if unjust law did exist and hurt the public’s benefit, there is always another democratic way to solve the problem instead of disobeying and resisting laws which might develop to an uncontrolled consequence.
    First, in our contemporary democratic society, a law that gives way to certain people’s standards of just and unjust, of course, is no longer a law, at least a just law, since the legislation of law based on benefits of the public. The personal standard is so subjective that it even varied under dissimilar circumstances. For instance, a thief broke into a house, but was caught before he could get anything and then was sentenced to a punishment. An irrelevant person might think that the punishment was too severe for the thief since he did not get anything. But the housemaster might think in a reverse way that the just had shown too much mercy on the thief so that the sentence was unjust. If the housemaster had not met such a thing, he might never have cared what punishment a thief would get.
    Second, if laws, most of which does ensure the stability of our society, or even if unjust laws as some people think, were disobeyed or even resisted by some people who would receive uncritical or even little punishments consequentially, the law system of our democratic society would collapse one day, just as T. Fuller said: “A small leak will sink a great ship.” If a so-called unjust law can be disobeyed and resisted, what about the so-called just law? Could they be also disobeyed and resisted just like the so-called unjust law since they are both laws and legislated for people to obey? A law is broken today and another law is broken tomorrow, and then what will happen the day after tomorrow?
    Third, there is always another safer and more democratic way to solve the unjust law problem if the majority of our society regard a law is unjust. It is no longer the society where the Holy Office held people’s tongue and burned the heretics to death in the Rome Flower Square. A law that hurts the interests of the public can be varied or even abolished in the legislature which stands for the benefit of the majority of our society at least to some extent. For instance, in America, the legislature is the parliament; in China, it is 人大代表大会。
    To sum up, it is hard to define a law whether it is just or unjust on the basis of very few people’s standards. In no condition should a law whether it is considered just or unjust be disobeyed or resisted, otherwise a more serious social law system problem would emerge and cover the initial unjust law problem entirely.