奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:" c, \& d4 p( h% i+ X4 x
6 k( d% _( p, W. G3 _8 L7 w
agree,5 ^1 t0 K# D( ?8 n0 i+ Q
我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,
* O% B/ H- x0 F! s但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,+ ^: d; O9 t) ?4 H6 O; _
期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

% y* i, e" ~" l8 jhttp://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html
+ n3 R* T; e% c3 T5 l3 f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
8 y5 h) y3 C+ v* {, h5 C. e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.
+ b0 ?4 h# o8 A) AJust some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:
* x- C+ E9 g7 s* g& v2 A. @有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！
, Y9 _9 i9 v" p7 X+ z. G
2 T$ W0 s, b- l$ h* C$ y+ e係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???, n& ^$ s* X2 g; Y
4 ^; {4 A. z: e0 L! L
為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

- L# N0 y  A$ U) I- c
" ^9 e4 y; ?( U# I) d6 f2 b
絕對支持啦% W- A5 R/ p" W5 g- T  e
' R2 K0 N0 K6 L6 z; N4 t8 r
有錯就認,打就企定  j  N6 {6 ?) t& N! v( t

. v9 n& G3 Y. U" L1 L  L8 q無錯當然要撐到底
: s- ]  w) Q1 L) p7 o' Q, h/ g+ s
但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩
  ?  K  R9 W/ m: ?
# V/ |0 ^( U; ]9 f8 |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! j/ D  j# l! I7 q% Q% o& P0 Z

8 N" d1 B, a* X* `& j  P+ m. @; A一份公眾讀物係好有影響力0 ]9 O/ h- r  u+ ^( C$ d

/ n; z5 J/ W, p3 s我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生1 X$ V2 u1 p# ]) V* w! A
5 c3 x  p8 X2 m, x  ]+ E1 ]
唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?. O+ K' y! {3 M' F* ?

8 A( w9 i  H6 d; [7 D* F$ z2 Q我唔認為lor
# M- Y; d) G# z; T% w0 a7 x% ?% b; c, j7 P: }- Q. j. J
唔係話要整死佢地" ^7 J( N/ Z' @3 s$ V/ A+ r" ~$ V

' o/ i7 o( e4 A7 K5 o# A- @1 }  g而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用
+ V5 d- f9 y. N) X  L  |& P
. R/ h! u/ |8 r0 ~1 }9 s+ W我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大
+ z& x" k. Q; c8 ~% _" U6 [! k
* g, P2 c& H, k" J' O有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的+ u7 H" s2 h: s7 T. v9 b; ?

/ J, M0 i+ z+ _唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由* }( P! k* i: L: J
; N) \! n& s3 Y( E2 U9 K
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 Z( E1 n9 D& X* ~; ~4 R"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非": Y# G- C1 q1 O$ Q. m
+ |3 [; q( i7 ]! L
我們的大學生% n5 Z' V7 c5 U6 B! v  ]8 s
7 j; _( O0 ?9 W5 k* R

, `& H7 q  t5 ]9 u% |9 w7 \) ~3 p; u4 Y7 k# a: E

/ R  j* q% Y6 c2 V: P# T9 x% p

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:4 S  B5 t, L: a4 s1 g" q5 s! g' b3 ^" e
. ]. m' W1 }; s) E2 D

- i" q; e% h5 G& m有見地 !!!7 l1 u- z/ \; z0 J
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; P+ G' G: w! o8 O8 I/ a6 S2 r
) n% r. p$ k: Y9 T5 x! a& M
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers.
! i- F4 p" o9 M- S' kI never think of any porn or sexual stuff after the reading, but just have some moment to retreat the social life in mind.
* _4 P# X# M9 b9 f& t& qI pretty sad that about the University official.
/ m! e$ C5 r% E0 Y" IIt'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
( [& V: R* k& R% @/ D% J; V) `2 v5 L! l% Y* E# l) o$ V& P
[ 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:
: ]0 \/ i7 v& `  x  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
3 q2 M) ]0 W# Q+ o1 Q" L% c& e) ^  R7 L/ \! S+ g6 r
[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

) [* J# ^, O# M* J/ w$ `

  c, b4 z/ H' x) N, `* ?- `兩者有何分別?
3 `( q7 U$ b4 k( B4 p1 U2 P, s& w' ^中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?