奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
% v. ?0 Z- A1 U2 \. p9 [! {6 ?, y% d0 ^+ h, t0 Y/ w% A
agree,
! I# D8 P. N( z我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,
, `# B6 n2 o: q0 T但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,
7 a1 b- I$ d$ q期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

% w1 [6 y) f9 G* ahttp://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html
; D3 Z& K6 @) z& [, ^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
2 E/ N* R) Y9 ]2 U7 {$ R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.7 S8 q$ _8 M- h$ Q" q, d0 m2 C
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:
* l7 w, `6 M% j  k有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！ - m8 e4 X+ |2 Q- O; F, O; ]+ _
3 Z' j4 b0 g/ m0 T
係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???$ k. C  y; T( a% ]9 _/ b

" @  D% r$ [6 l+ v$ z" v" _8 ]7 L! P為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

) d9 T1 a: a) a  n5 i! Y

+ M0 c3 t) y# t' M/ K( G: A絕對支持啦. y6 f" r2 _5 `6 I% [2 R1 P
! v; e, C  r5 Y
有錯就認,打就企定
! u% P: v9 D# ^& c
# U3 ^/ ?5 V  Y7 s: E無錯當然要撐到底
' {$ |0 N) X  _* r9 v' B0 Q8 O$ d' \% S
但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩" Q8 |4 Q! e  z

1 }% d4 o( g8 ]0 P1 ?) B# l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
+ \! V! R) Y; M# w; P
3 M( j: p* A8 l/ M( j一份公眾讀物係好有影響力
9 W* J. h, R5 S" P$ x9 J3 O1 ~, n1 o- e1 y  w( H3 z5 ~- U
我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生
  F+ v/ M6 ~& H% J( E( M# g% _
) {1 J5 p( `: z% [) ~4 F唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?
# i  z  \; R1 f0 Y0 f
) q- n" G8 b7 [; _5 Y我唔認為lor
, |8 i* G# b) Z( O8 t3 S) [/ F  J0 i/ Q
唔係話要整死佢地
5 j- {# {, F& E1 l
; I9 k$ l/ ?( d; p; @* e/ z$ U4 a  r而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用; M+ {6 M+ I+ ?1 m4 U$ Z

/ q: ?* g2 a, M# B; E1 d我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大
! I1 ~% r8 }2 ?. u- A. v4 O  n8 J2 }
3 W) u& a; `' F. f  Y; K有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的8 ~% k% e% c1 R- [, A3 z

8 L7 ]3 ?; V5 F/ P. V% W" ^9 c& {唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由' y% |8 r6 q2 n% I7 L

! ~$ W- i" \% T! [  m& M! H, q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 ]0 d. i7 I" c+ |, B0 [) Y% a8 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"
5 W# J' s" y% g% x8 Q9 z2 ^( Z' a/ \1 P. F
我們的大學生
- C7 v7 i1 I' O" E; G) L2 y
% j+ O6 }- ?; G$ j6 u+ O
. r) k* @% ~. }1 I: V( B3 K( j* f7 X: g: b* n# w; m
1 W6 ~1 I3 B! `+ p: Z

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:* Q- s* [1 ]# L# _6 \  x
1 e  L& k5 f7 M" H' l

+ ~' p5 n4 I) k/ M* ]7 K2 U有見地 !!!7 M$ e* U" T( f. _1 L5 l
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* s& A' _, x+ n$ Y4 W( U/ K$ ?
' B) z- O4 J( k4 @0 L( A3 s. ?. n
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
# `; ?- p7 `1 H* B- ^I never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind. . F. b! ~+ s6 P8 b; P' U6 O" [
I pretty sad that about the University official.; A9 j6 z0 J3 o; P
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, R2 \4 A+ h- R  h. f* w
, ^/ ^: W: @8 t& J6 O4 r2 F% X
[ 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:/ n7 Z( o# C  w; l
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& B; x0 f4 R1 k" I- u7 a
+ t( V' e% A" w8 t6 P
[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

9 T3 m; S* ~% G! ^4 i. U0 c% v* A9 h
兩者有何分別?4 l% k' g5 `4 B' u5 i: N$ j5 G
中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?