奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
0 {% m  P, V8 |/ M
4 Q( ?8 T+ u# K% j- @! Cagree,
, X; q0 U; @4 @7 q我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,
) Y5 q( Y* t4 A" j9 m6 F0 O( J但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,* v! ~4 C8 m+ Y( q  z
期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

# A2 e& G7 j6 |% O3 ?5 F+ ~! C
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html# c9 b+ N1 o& k3 S9 X  B  S7 M7 C
已經睇左幾期,性質傾向於性教育,同某報既果d嫖妓指南,差天共地+ C& y( {3 p/ z" r& M; B$ D: |
搞成咁,都係兩個原因,第一係香港人係性方面真係好保守,探討下都唔得,第二係欺善怕惡,見係學生就恰你

chicken

Read the student post and find that it's not as evil as described by the media.
# h6 z9 P1 e& y6 ^! {Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:8 x5 l7 n' E' E) q1 \3 G7 j5 g
有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ * {3 Z- M5 e- E0 c( a! Q
6 D* N) T" \$ s
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???
, z  V! M2 r" q- V8 O& k" ^! L8 n# u5 L- J
為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

: j& ~% b% X' d# r" f
/ h2 \) U- q9 M2 w7 {* D4 S
絕對支持啦
" p+ w1 Z3 {, G. u! ], ?0 k5 Y0 [. d) M+ r
有錯就認,打就企定
; z5 N0 B7 q/ ^
9 w$ y% U3 l  R6 _9 `  d. \4 y無錯當然要撐到底8 |& |8 c) g/ n. X

9 R' y0 s$ D" ?* J3 M& Z$ M; E$ g但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
* C& P% }' f* x& E4 @  F% K1 h) v; R* R
在發佈一份公眾讀物時,內容應該注意下,唔同私人交談,你講咩都得
" Z' E# h3 L! ^0 E6 \# ^- P2 T' n
一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
3 x1 D0 q. c* z1 g( i& v. s% D* V6 Y0 S6 ?- G
我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生- S0 z+ j3 j: }8 J* n

2 @1 M% K6 U4 P3 X7 U唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?
; [, b# e; b( y9 V) w) u* s9 D( o% a! k* f4 k* C6 k
我唔認為lor& _+ N8 R$ w/ F8 H

! E/ C2 e# R# X3 u6 j1 k唔係話要整死佢地
# @( c6 w& n+ b  F. b
0 w: `" w, u5 H: U- {而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
: ~" e8 J0 c  \7 S3 C+ C) h  j! z5 g6 i, f
我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大! u" C! j2 F8 R: w; Y4 P9 v! ^
9 H# a. K  M5 z1 D8 H. t0 p
有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的
0 }7 Z- Z- ]9 \. d3 ?5 i3 ], Z: \1 Q6 l$ r. o7 F, R! [! [2 F
唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由, t! a% P0 u* b# n% A; S/ j
" i& W  a# ?; o& w0 r2 R* I
大家都知偷錢搶錢係唔唔法,唔通咁又話政府防礙你搵錢?

浪子

睇完, 真係冇野好講, 咁所有中小學性教育書籍都可以列做不雅

hackenli

一日一金句0 N4 ^7 l% P' C; \& Q8 M- `
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"& U6 ~1 z1 D# i* j: U3 X
/ m4 j* D( Z9 i: Z/ s. M4 Q& S+ Q
我們的大學生0 N0 W& T8 ]5 A- w
# G- S8 D2 [! X( G2 C

1 b7 w0 q( s3 e/ e, j: J) u0 ?" B/ ~
( c5 N9 o& l' e: M% c) l3 D
4 a  ?* M$ U( Y

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:' c& A1 U5 p. }  a; u/ p+ ]0 x

' s, U$ S) u& W+ H# Z8 p, U
# _* I0 w* ]1 z& q) i/ W有見地 !!!
9 ~( i8 u- ^" I/ Z) |: c現今大學生部份以為...

vv1668vv

反映大學生對法律認知不足。自以為是

支持者

http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html4 L; z/ e" \: ~1 y5 b9 r8 u' {
7 ?0 y2 F$ D- h# P; c* \) \
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers. 4 h# f8 c$ v* b: X* g" v+ A/ C
I never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.
9 F. W& b, B* Q  eI pretty sad that about the University official.5 V' j+ }1 F7 a. B
It's them making the stuff worse.

bigfish

我覺得份報刊以市井中文刊出就顯得不雅, 如果轉用華麗英文刊登就乜事都冇 la% h. g6 d, V! w/ e# U5 F3 \/ C
  F, X- N/ @* u' d. d7 e0 i. a
[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

mailcool7

有錯就認,打就企定

155220

Originally posted by bigfish at 2007-5-15 17:24:% p! @& O2 R) Q7 l+ z$ i) Z
我覺得份報刊以市井中文刊出就顯得不雅, 如果轉用華麗英文刊登就乜事都冇 la
/ `7 @3 b# v  [) I" I' }$ v
, u$ S3 O) ~; t7 T[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

7 p3 z6 W3 x. u$ I: {' x. G$ j% E. O3 F6 |: E0 a& O
兩者有何分別?
6 M' O- `7 k; A( _& M! Y8 I中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?