奪命老妖

Originally posted by seafireson2 at 2007-5-15 02:29 PM:
9 b) @2 [3 B) f( V/ ]7 I, v# k* L- E9 J. h7 B
agree,
' e/ V3 l2 K7 w# Z9 H我都未睇過,根本唔知係點,可能真係討論成份為主,
  `+ b* D- V; \% x但我估同方向生果比,係小兒科,. S: |4 o( U9 g5 c& n
期盼方向生果比人被定性二級不雅!

, Y/ [: m* Q7 R% C
http://www.xanga.com/cusp_07/590 ... 76362152636620.html
+ F7 Q7 _* B7 R! ^8 a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 m; O# G/ e  k7 f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.8 s. a; A& d; I  W" a) h) k8 X
Just some extreme-conservative people too nervous about it.

sakura310

Originally posted by d228216 at 2007-5-15 01:58 PM:
7 b0 P& z" r3 V6 ?% i4 @/ `有罪就要罸, 冇罪就要平反, 法庭應申張正義！
; }& C1 ^$ e; H2 i! ?3 y
1 `% ]0 D( |/ `5 w% i! j% l係咪大學生根本冇關係....大學生巴閉d?? 有免死金牌???6 u& V8 O+ Z" f5 e/ F1 }, d

  s6 v% J: I8 x% R2 R2 Y' W為自己既行為負責, 係今日既年青人最需要學習既野!

5 D  C& n# ~; g1 D' O+ A3 m' x* z9 y2 I, N8 e; G/ N/ j, x2 [
絕對支持啦
+ y9 a0 v$ l7 T, h' t8 }0 i* w" r1 }/ b7 A  t" i% U
有錯就認,打就企定! _! I( f3 B# L$ E/ ]

1 J8 d! L2 r5 {7 ^6 T無錯當然要撐到底
% K' p5 X. i+ _6 p1 K7 E' C8 C/ c( B6 p
但今次我覺得係班大學生唔0岩; B/ [, N# v/ l" n

: B! g' o+ f9 F, u! A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
2 {( Z0 Z: G2 g
2 ?6 W. ]4 g! a: y; C. a, F* }一份公眾讀物係好有影響力8 v2 E2 h1 D9 H' D( Z- R7 ?6 u  d
) t7 _5 ]5 c. R
我唔認為學校方今次要幫班學生
+ C/ N) c* z6 N' g% u( a3 }3 @# U3 @7 x7 l4 C
唔通第時出到去做野做錯事就有亞head幫你頂?- J" G: x2 [( k' ]7 _, P

( v& m  p5 x2 m. C. G& \# [: p& k) F+ @我唔認為lor8 g3 }1 Y+ ^$ `$ a& i( }" U' A6 |

/ g" C* X8 ~0 `( T/ D唔係話要整死佢地
9 ~* g; y# O6 H1 Q% x1 O" G
/ ?/ H' c/ Z8 v. y/ N而係今次件事,如果判得成的話,自然起到警惕作用" T( ?4 r" c1 N) g& O

/ o* Y5 M8 I) c8 |我覺得係d人將言論自由ge範圍放得太大
& F& b, |! W2 f" U- Q- H# C& d
- R4 ]3 b& n3 Z/ q* H0 S8 `1 Y有d野係應該講,有d野係唔應該係公眾場合講的
: b; J# E0 X" s2 r" h; B; e7 d4 @. x% Q
唔係話唔應該講就係防礙言論自由
0 }1 u! v) Y8 A# x
5 f7 x" R' G& D6 @! I$ d/ `5 A, T: \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
& |" A, m% s3 ^. }- R9 _"佢地有比一般市民較高o既學歷,就更應該能夠明辨是非"% C1 O0 {  O" d( I

; a4 {: w. K% g6 S; K我們的大學生# Z; s' B/ c" ?/ X& m) @
% T( W* c. v1 \' `+ @. A4 q4 Z: D- p

" d7 ?  i8 Q  M# \$ t# w% S% l& b. ^+ m/ c2 |! H1 A

# u9 Q/ `2 @: u% j  r# v' Y  p9 V' w1 O

Originally posted by easy_man at 2007-5-15 02:13 PM:
) D1 C& l& H( o: g. N0 L
8 x& S) A+ J0 I! }" i5 |
2 W! k* h7 d5 G9 c: H# X. l: E有見地 !!!
3 a6 `. P. S0 z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
( O7 P: ~. C. B4 w8 O4 G6 I4 F7 F5 p  [- w  ?
I think the content is rather premature, i.e. not a porn stuff compare with some HK newspapers. 2 a; Z9 ~! s' 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.
3 v: H; M, b9 d9 MI pretty sad that about the University official.0 o) w/ B/ ]. c4 N7 s# w
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
( h* g; R6 U% L5 z. r* F. Y& R: g  V5 N5 j
[ 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:* q: n4 f( T2 Y& g% k5 n6 Q( J
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 la4 y/ l  D# {* ^4 ?* i+ Q+ b

1 P/ d/ o7 P7 E7 w* [: z& ^[ Last edited by bigfish on 2007-5-15 at 05:26 PM ]

, d5 m& p1 ~& U. n3 m1 ~, b
( z5 \  v0 N3 D4 L
兩者有何分別?" `; D9 H8 B7 E$ [0 w) O
中文就市井,英文就華麗,有咩根據?