奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
6 Q$ @8 z; w: o7 @% l8 U2 f% K) Y' Q* Q( t5 x4 ~# C/ C
agree,
0 X, P) a( K2 \6 f4 c我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,
3 K/ k) g8 U1 X1 m# i& s  ~/ i但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,
! n2 S- P$ h# W期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

$ a( }, Y2 \% V6 ?9 phttp://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html1 t; Q1 U& S9 x) w
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6 ]  A- Y% P) }6 U) n
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.2 |) x8 e" o: U1 e$ P" r3 ]
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:/ V$ g6 F1 Q! L, ~. ?
有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ 2 q1 }4 r8 c3 M9 |
2 _. D# w$ G% r+ u% V2 J& e  q! V8 M
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???# H. |" Y& N2 t

5 D( t8 f7 z0 o1 q% I" j# c5 E2 [* o為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

3 Y6 D/ \- C/ d# S
! r* X2 S9 c8 h1 }絕對支持啦
+ t% X  `, P) U# z
4 I6 g' Z+ A8 ^# s: R7 u" M有錯就認,打就企定
/ U* P) z6 k. t3 Z
: n+ \( e0 K! x0 |  W$ K7 L" T無錯當然要撐到底
$ s/ `4 \9 F. V# m9 e/ n; D, K* Z( c, f
但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩7 x& F" p' z& T. r6 y$ }
$ F) I7 r1 _4 F0 P3 N  @9 A- H# w
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
0 O6 W; Q! U& ?0 m; @( C8 P- X5 L. B7 J3 x( W  P8 C
一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
7 i6 `, a* E3 z9 X3 [$ E: ^4 _. v% y3 C5 V9 b
我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生
; W/ F( t0 T4 o; K4 s$ _+ c# m9 X6 l3 E+ a  R+ U; w
唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?* q4 q# ]3 c% t# d# d3 m

: }$ t( F6 t9 W5 y% w+ U# n我唔認為lor
2 L0 r% Q1 W9 o9 J% I
6 e$ l+ b5 R; q) d唔係話要整死佢地
0 V0 t9 D+ X$ X% P, ?2 ^3 |" f! v# n0 C. O- `; v+ P: S; P9 ~0 _  y9 Q% R
而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
! h. e+ S$ y# Q- X" S1 O! {4 t1 O' p9 |* u" _" K# ^/ f" ]
我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大
6 s7 Z( ?) c, Z) F) e% H+ H& C% N; t1 k
有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的
7 J, V5 p7 j2 r9 n5 v: I( M1 ?- ?/ t
唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由
9 u+ N7 f% u* {# Y, G8 S$ [# E1 s; ]
8 m; f7 P9 \+ T0 R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! X( l1 X. @4 y% J$ ]; h
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"
: n! P; I2 p% |$ J- ?7 l& H
- i- l( d! Y  s: g. u我們的大學生3 b9 |7 O' \1 L* R0 K- v
- ^' Y& M' M' m) ]$ C  y1 t

) l8 r; d% a" z7 H3 u4 `+ k
5 \' ^4 I& S9 P6 _: f$ M" G: Y( a# r" M; J7 p: k0 K$ V

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:7 R0 z3 b: R/ u3 W
1 {, d; U% ]% `6 E* J

/ n+ b8 k4 G- g* o$ `3 d& x" p% y" F有見地 !!!
  k% n) z% ]/ p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.html2 w9 Q5 ~! {5 N: z( \: s& o1 s
$ P8 K: C! F; ^8 b( R5 S$ n
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
. T, K, d' @! H0 Z/ R4 b3 JI never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.
6 g3 c7 {; n# r: G6 DI pretty sad that about the University official.
! f/ n+ M. p( U+ w3 gIt'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% P5 Q* B% l0 L2 t1 F0 J

& d/ t# i3 \: D& Q; b" n" l[ 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:
; S5 u8 F' N; n( e# |8 b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
# P0 k, d6 \+ q; @5 I9 ]0 Y2 Q, _- C* V7 {, y( A
[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

% L9 }& W+ V! O5 K! @. t, d

% w' P0 |; c. I; M( X/ b兩者有何分別?) B! Z8 p7 K1 w9 u# R+ E& N/ i4 K
中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?