奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
( W% r) _! U; v, M
& r8 T* O+ r; j4 r: Yagree,
) T( w0 {- t) p" S我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,+ K- |6 K. P3 T, K! K
但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,! p/ J0 o) a$ q3 J. u
期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

* d' m  V9 d+ n! l" z
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html6 C5 l3 |( l) W* W! t
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
3 g5 R2 }0 [' s& \4 a/ _. k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.
5 C& i7 i: m8 l0 P0 _5 I2 rJust some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:6 N) C* |( B. L
有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ / b) I& T% J7 z9 s9 _+ i9 B

1 l( z8 q6 x4 K, z) \  Q7 A; g( a係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???) N, ?% N( ^7 i

3 ^% w! E( ~  w$ {8 C& Y# ^為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

, N0 ?/ `, P4 }: k  c* w! K9 d* f$ l! x1 c) J
絕對支持啦# X3 m3 F0 W1 a2 U+ p+ c4 Z

1 B: |& I9 ~9 F3 _有錯就認,打就企定0 R: ~% d) x; t: Y. {

7 P0 w' F9 j  H* J無錯當然要撐到底1 h% A/ ]" E- t

( K8 F4 g1 `  \6 t" u但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
( S. i; \8 l+ \! B$ V* }2 U# A$ |, p  R1 f( U
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+ K& L# g$ H# [+ O1 |9 r+ {

. j# z6 |9 q7 f$ _一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
# c: D& {& {) W" _  D- l
4 C9 h  H" E) S- u% z$ e我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生
* j8 B7 T9 a. w$ i; R
/ u9 e# H& D/ d3 H唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?
6 W6 F& ?5 [8 P! Q8 Z- U5 Y' _( B# F" Z" m0 f
我唔認為lor8 t+ n) Q" g% l$ M$ J

+ V+ D8 W# b8 c* B( Q" v, V唔係話要整死佢地
! ]0 k/ w$ V# f5 e( {
0 Q; u, v. K; R! ~0 D而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
9 h' A8 Q7 a) w9 m
$ ~$ G4 H+ N. @8 w6 ^! f4 ?6 D我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大2 D3 Q/ t+ N! M7 O- R
# X8 e& S0 \; T- s3 c
有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的! @5 W# f6 ^1 v( H4 a

' J. \% P% ?7 A唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由5 k" Q( v8 I% H6 m
; }! y2 n+ T0 `# q8 }5 ~
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6 r; D) `; r- ?: a# u" E; O
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"
' e- i: P0 @6 Z* h7 _% Y* m7 E9 D$ o
我們的大學生4 p" f! ?" p/ s! i1 ?
7 J! f1 d& y8 B
, @5 B8 m: V6 s5 B2 q6 T9 Q0 E

& W2 b5 e- j4 A" M: v( I. D* A  U2 i# T6 R+ E

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:
  D/ j$ g) _2 A5 P4 I9 N1 D; D0 o* z% P

+ z$ v/ W$ C% z% o$ _+ p9 K有見地 !!!
9 [  P8 r, l) n+ _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# k; n- y6 L9 U5 ]. J# `; N# Q7 ]

) B% _2 R8 N) T9 oI think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers. 8 B$ W0 t7 b# n2 T7 u8 Q) I
I never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind. ) x" P& Z! ~+ O$ ~0 Q$ ~, e
I pretty sad that about the University official.
2 r# q  l' h$ pIt'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( d! i, D; y+ }& U. R5 J
. I  d7 }2 v0 ?9 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:% D# e$ h5 D, o" g% X4 w0 s
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 la5 p( z+ |* [" h- U4 n5 U

2 d3 Q3 U( u: F* n4 h6 ~2 P[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

+ R. T. H; @3 s6 d
/ F: y! t) G* V7 Q( K" U兩者有何分別?
# N( S# O$ t' a! r/ P/ G中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?