奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
# ]( Y  D" u# \# u6 O7 ~  [" M7 [+ _: c; h
agree,3 ^3 w$ P/ j3 e! e
我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,. n8 U3 |; P( P' I% r4 M
但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,9 U3 d! J. i8 f, E" Z* ^
期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

% ~9 N( n6 C6 Ohttp://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html* h7 M; A0 o1 a' s; o6 I2 `' G
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
/ W  I6 Z5 U! P# m0 \1 {/ u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." s  O$ e6 c$ H! L7 E" L3 |
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:2 h8 K& Q* d2 e2 m' _
有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ % e, s* R* S0 [
# F% a" G) L2 O6 U, ?! ], J
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???$ _! H  l" d. P5 X( ?( ?
* m( z" z* N! y1 p7 R
為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

3 ^  s$ i' _; T& F; P4 |
, h# O1 f. i) w  T! m/ X+ V# Y( R
絕對支持啦
/ Q1 A6 c+ v( T; s7 Z9 j: v' M* J  d- n6 a. r/ `: T, ?
有錯就認,打就企定" B0 v! I) O  t9 \

7 S" S7 T! T  j. c2 W7 K/ l無錯當然要撐到底% a7 T: E; t( f4 {
/ g! ]6 C5 }# R8 A1 {0 H
但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
; [) e( `6 l% R- B& u4 n- Q& D" s0 r$ ^
$ p) N0 W! I: P! g' B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
, P) g5 k9 t9 v& ]! i* b' U, w) v
+ x8 H$ _6 W6 k( }# C) r( k一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
7 G. I- |" ]; E" U5 `. X9 @( H1 f4 e
& y4 K* |5 o+ T9 P' _+ C# u7 y- Y我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生9 }7 \( f& }% P& L& }5 m
5 x7 y- ]+ i1 T, I! j1 R1 b( D
唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?
8 J* L5 ]: u  k& d; R: ], s, j7 U9 x3 j' a
我唔認為lor
2 |: S* U! ^; B9 A) P
" d& ]+ y) N" Q. m唔係話要整死佢地
3 N9 n! i4 j7 y8 |& P5 b/ A
4 N* @0 B) L7 B9 }/ P8 b而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
( `- B4 H* ]6 u, Y1 I' {: j8 R. u% m5 ]  a* @
我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大% t( d7 b5 @4 {7 v
7 w0 n) @# o: ~1 e0 U, o4 [
有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的0 `0 f7 N1 N/ u# D. ~. p9 r
' h- S9 @. u2 u( z4 w2 ]6 E
唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由1 z. R( e# ?8 ]9 X# Y% k/ u9 H+ u' z

% X0 o. l- a" J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# D+ ~0 e* p2 X
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"
/ h; A7 r4 @% i" r' h5 x' M. x- g0 d
我們的大學生5 z! I2 x; h: \/ P0 {4 ^4 L3 M

0 h8 h8 @! n! t( N( g7 g8 w+ R- i. y9 q7 [% E  g1 C
* ?8 R1 N3 o; K; f& m' \4 N
/ _9 l; H* B9 m5 U0 M

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:# y; a0 l5 b: _( p: G# e2 `

8 p4 R5 L* x1 k: _8 u3 }/ h
2 o0 t. w% Z. L; x9 y有見地 !!!
  J/ \6 q+ U5 |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.html
1 g$ C- `- L/ l4 B7 J$ D) H: x. R* {. m4 A, K
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
# ?( |% C% Y- pI never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind. . y  ^( i& Q( Y0 \
I pretty sad that about the University official.
( c7 T" }. _. d: KIt'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
3 K" J0 l+ |# v  `3 I5 G0 q$ N- I, |6 S, h7 F+ ~% c
[ 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:
6 n, E1 [; U. T( I3 e3 V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/ K' Z( H, `: |2 ?1 @" m
% {; P/ g" c( m" T. y5 L
[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

' }4 @# O8 m# g6 f" l5 `: u# O
; T. `3 d& `/ A0 [* N* F' c4 x兩者有何分別?7 P3 v. O& |1 n; I6 z
中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?