奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
& N, W' ^# F( z- M- @
( T$ }1 O' n8 r' @5 Uagree," M* v. A$ ]+ J. w& j2 `
我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,- y! t" b+ F5 U% W3 S  D
但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,
5 A8 O3 R  k. i/ B期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

" O* A1 m; X* [
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html
' n; g* m# {) x: o  r5 `' Y! ]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
, h* R: w) r1 @% z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.$ ^9 J9 T0 X6 ?. I  K$ k4 }
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:
; S# V' I( x: p: g5 S1 Q; @" ?有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ 1 h# {/ p8 P7 r  J
! ]# |; Y8 B3 f6 ~! \; p2 O/ O
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???% c1 }1 _7 I, X  ^8 \; m7 |
, n8 }) l' C+ Q# u' V5 n
為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

# p8 ?% n6 w. n2 O# L# V* O6 W5 n" w2 i$ Q6 \: N* Q
絕對支持啦
/ o) p$ r+ F- F- f% V0 l, H* o0 H4 N, L! I, b7 O; V0 I
有錯就認,打就企定+ W- S3 q6 n0 K) z! A' \8 m
: _8 t6 r. O' ~+ I& m! A# k( Y2 z+ R: i3 [
無錯當然要撐到底9 v9 l" F/ ^+ q; Q' @: P6 W

  N- q7 s; w/ K但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
. Q# G9 a7 I0 e) D( S* {! D+ m, Z
# a: E$ l) c' l' o+ e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9 C& I" `1 U7 k; T0 R
9 [" H- T. o0 C$ Y/ [
一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
# P) C1 Q& W1 d
  ^* c& x5 \0 |1 l) u' l我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生, G& w$ ~7 ]  W4 i1 H
8 s, @+ X2 F& }# z9 ]
唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?
8 M7 x0 t. C7 y! [7 F, d" r
) T& k* [, }' I$ N5 s# l2 H. A我唔認為lor
, r( _- Z; c; q9 s- v9 e  q
1 X5 K, i! F# p* e% O, p) G5 i! |唔係話要整死佢地% J# U4 f6 ]3 ?/ x
2 A. o' H  }% K7 W2 g/ Y
而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用; t7 W  H) m  \! J+ b6 X% E8 H

( i) c# K% o4 Q$ L我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大
- G0 w' R" Y- i4 |" A% d% D/ N9 a6 a$ a9 L8 ^; K0 _: J, u
有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的
4 b0 T, m! d, _9 z* V) a* ~6 A# I2 `3 h2 p& Y- d
唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由% k: ^/ l8 ^) P
2 _% {! {+ ~7 i3 |  s' P
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3 \2 U- p% ?- Z4 x0 o2 f( @5 w
"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"9 \/ z; X! Y5 {# S( r; \
6 N4 d& D) f5 K! ^1 [
我們的大學生  i- J# P0 a& N, ^( q- @& y

" {. s! I# L8 t: ]/ w8 M+ ]1 L( N$ o9 `2 \  o2 p4 Q7 {

# T6 `1 U% I3 n) ]
% B3 u% v% v& `0 c# u

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:
7 G) Q) a, P6 f7 o: }) W5 a7 t2 y. f: S7 K
6 I! p* g* F* ~" q$ b9 j1 t
有見地 !!!7 I/ o  I3 s& @: n2 d* ^+ J! E
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
7 N+ x8 @2 ~3 Y0 ?) k' ?# h  }$ g
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
5 M  O. m  j: Y7 B$ h% M7 ]I never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.
& H7 j% S! Q) d# u4 iI pretty sad that about the University official.
* O; T" c( W% x; t4 qIt'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
- s) E9 m; Y: M4 P9 z0 k7 I# j- y- i( U8 R* l# w" `9 p% i
[ 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 A$ H% n& E  I5 `6 t! A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  X, p3 e: o# F5 o& t

- p( G; C, r  y& q3 v9 k% [  u) Z[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

* D" e$ q9 b6 P2 c" e( R; b  x
" |7 k$ q, e+ ?9 P4 y兩者有何分別?9 V- T& T3 P, `( u4 ?. L
中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?