Issue17 (gogogo小组)

neverstopcowUID: 2149686

Issue 17 (414字)
Issue17. (总频率35)
"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."

outline:1.转述题目，部分同意题目说法，作为公民应该守法，但不一定所有的法律都遵守。
          2.法律是不断变化的，以前的法律也许现在不是用了，举例：美国颁布过一个禁酒的修正案
         3.法律单纯分为正义和非正义太武断了，正义与非正义因个人的价值观和个人的利益而不同
         4.总结，在重申自己观点。

According to the statement, as an individual in the society, every person should obey just laws as well as disobey unjust laws. Laws are something that keeps every legal resident live in a stabilized environment and make sure that every people can share equal inalienable rights. In order to ensure that the laws can work well, we legal residents should take our obligations and obey laws, but it’s not to say that we should obey all the laws strictly.
The laws did not keep constant at all, instead, it changed from generation to generation. If people find that there is deficiency in the former laws system, legislature will discuss how to mend the law, and this is how the amendments come. For instance, 17th Jan, 1920, the 18th amendment of the American Constitution which is about the forbid of wine comes to work, but as a result, the gangster Dom had come to prime through the profit made by the contraband wine. We can see from the result that there is still something unreasonable in the amendment, we can make the prophecy that this law will be amended again. So our obligation is not only to mechanically obey all the laws, we should also find the unreasonable part in our laws and help to amend the system to the best.
But on the other hand, I think that it is arbitrary to simply divide the laws into just and unjust ones. Whether a law is just or unjust depends on many factors. First, it may depend on personal value system.. For example, before long one of the most controversial topics is clone, from scientists’ stand this is a great development in the science in the human history, while on the ethnicst’ eyes, clone may cause great chaos. Second, it may have relations with personal interest. Consider that a factory which emit toxic effluents into the nearby river is forced to shut down by relating laws. This law means to protect public health, but to the leader of the factory, this means the lose of money, so he may think that this law is unjust. We can conclude that the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one’s personal interests are affected by it.
In sum, the laws can not simply be divided into just and unjust ones. I think it is more grounded to divide the laws into reasonable and unreasonable ones, we should obey reasonable ones while amend unreasonable ones.

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-21 at 22:37 ]

orange0770UID: 2122654

According to the statement, as an individual in the society, every person （each person 好一点吧） should obey just laws as well as disobey unjust laws. Laws are something（something 感觉不够正式，改成laws can keep …..是不是好一点） that keeps every legal （legal 是指合法的，楼主的意思是不是遵守法律的人，如果是的话应该是every resident who abide by the rules ）resident live in a stabilized(用stable 会简洁一些) environment and make sure that every people can share equal inalienable rights. In order to ensure that the （the可以去掉，因为前文没有指出是哪些法律）laws can work well, we legal residents should take（用assume 更正式） our obligations and obey laws, but it’s not to say that we should obey all the laws strictly. （是不是把哪些法律不应遵守放在第一段住处会更清楚一些呢）

The laws did not keep constant at all, instead, it changed from generation to generation.(还是用一般现在时吧，保持全文的时态一致) If people find that there is deficiency in the former laws system, legislature will discuss how to mend （mend 可以用来表示对打破、撕破、穿破等物或衣服进行修理或修补，也可以表示治愈创伤，矫正过错或使破裂的感情重归于好。这里应该用amend）the law, and this is how the amendments come （用 come forth, 表示出现）. For instance, 17th Jan, 1920, the 18th amendment of the American Constitution which is (was)about the forbid （forbiddance）of wine comes (came)to work, but as a result, the gangster Dom had come (came)to prime through the profit made by (made by 改成from)the contraband wine.（注意时态一致） We can see from the result that there is still something unreasonable in the amendment, we can make the prophecy that this law will be amended again. (最后修改了吗？)So our obligation is not only to mechanically （blindly 好不好）obey all the laws, we should also find the unreasonable part（parts） in our laws and help to amend the system to the best.

But on the other hand, I think that it is arbitrary to simply divide the laws into just and unjust ones. Whether a law is just or unjust depends on many factors. First, it may depend on personal value system.. For example, before long one of the most controversial topics is clone, from scientists’ stand this is a great development in the science in the human history（in history 就可以了吧）, while on the ethnicst’ （伦理学者是moralist）eyes, clone may cause great chaos. Second, it may have relations with personal interest. Consider that a factory which emit (emits)toxic effluents into the nearby river is forced to shut down by relating laws. This law means to protect public health, but to the leader of the factory, this means the lose of money(losing money), so he may think that this law is unjust. We can conclude that the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one’s personal interests are affected by it.
In sum, the laws can not simply be divided into just and unjust ones. I think it is more grounded to divide the laws into reasonable and unreasonable ones, we should obey reasonable ones while amend unreasonable ones.

orange0770UID: 2122654

个人感觉二三段是不是调一下位置比较好。先说法律分为正义与非正义不恰当，再说人们应该怎么办。

happy_shirleyUID: 2155516

看楼主的文章先看的中文部分提纲，感觉论证的层次不是很清晰。至少你的中文提纲没有能让我明白你的观点到底是什么。
1.转述题目，部分同意题目说法，作为公民应该守法，但不一定所有的法律都遵守。
你的观点本身又成为了攻击点，应该守法，但不一定所有的法律都遵守，这种说法本身不是矛盾的吗？因此立论就让人感觉不是很清晰。不要为了迎合issue的什么正反写法就部分同意。我这么认为。AW重要的就是要有自己的想法和观点
2.法律是不断变化的，以前的法律也许现在不是用了，举例：美国颁布过一个禁酒的修正案 这个和人们是否遵守法律有什么关系？感觉这个例子有点绕，不能直接证明你的观点

3.法律单纯分为正义和非正义太武断了，正义与非正义因个人的价值观和个人的利益而不同。 这个说法可以接受。
4.总结，在重申自己观点。

写这些评论的时候没有看你的英文作文只是从提纲来看，没有清晰地看出你的观点到底支持的是什么。因此在后面修改的时候只点出语言错误，不再讨论逻辑思路问题 了。

According to the statement, as an individual in the society, every person should obey just laws as well as disobey unjust laws. Laws are something that keeps every legal resident live in a stabilized environment and make sure that every people can share equal inalienable rights. （建议这句话放在最前面总起，否则分不清这个是你的还是作者的观点）In order to ensure that the laws can work well, we legal residents should take our obligations and obey laws, but it’s not to say that we should obey all the laws strictly.

The laws did not do not keep constant at all, instead, it changed from generation to generation (法律也可以说一代又一代？). If people find that there is deficiency in the former laws system (应该是发现现在的法律有问题吧), legislature will discuss how to mend the law, and this is how the amendments come. For instance, 17th Jan, 1920, the 18th amendment of the American Constitution which is about the forbid forbiden of wine comes to work, but as a result, the gangster Dom had come to prime through the profit made by the contraband wine. We can see from the result that there is still something unreasonable in the amendment, we can make the prophecy that this law will be amended again. So our obligation is not only to mechanically obey all the laws, we should also find the unreasonable part in our laws and help to amend the system to the best to be better. 说实话，这段的论证我看的有点晕～～:L 句子太罗索，而且结构不是很清楚。

But on the other hand, I think 一般不用think，换成deem， consider都可以。that it is arbitrary to simply divide the laws into just and unjust ones. Whether a law :confused:is just or unjust depends on many factors. First, it may depend on personal value system.. For example, before long one of the most controversial topics is clone, from scientists’ stand this is a great development in the science in the human history, while on the ethnicst’ eyes, clone may cause great chaos.(这是道德伦理问题，不是法律问题) Second, it may have relations with personal interest[/color].（我觉得是出于个人利益问题） Consider considering that a factory which emit toxic effluents into the nearby river is forced to shut down by relating laws. This law :Omeans to (不太合适，没想好用什么) protect public health, but to the leader of the factory, this means the lose of money, so he may think that this law is unjust. We can conclude that the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one’s personal interests are affected by it. 这句话的表达不太通顺。

In a sum, the laws can not simply be divided into just and unjust ones. I think it is more grounded to divide the laws into reasonable and unreasonable ones, 楼主的这个结论在上面也没有论证，怎么得出的呢？we should obey reasonable ones while amend unreasonable ones.

这篇issue比较难写，但是还是要注意先立论。
看完整篇，感觉逻辑思路还不是太清楚。建议再理清一下。
楼主的句式使用不是很熟练，勤加练习，加多多背诵可能会好些！
加油:victory:

neverstopcowUID: 2149686

这一片自己都不知道怎么立论，什么都想说，结果什么都没说清楚，导致我都不忍心再看第二遍了。准备抽空再写一遍。非常感谢shirley的修改，一定再接再厉！

neverstopcowUID: 2149686

刚刚忘记感谢orange0770了，由于我写得比较烂，能耐心看完真得太感谢了