Yuyutsu, it was an Aboriginal man who required the protection of the Church of Latter Day Complaints , but you hit the nail on the head:"how was it possible?".

Of course, it isn't possible, but as is always the case in religious matters, impossibility provides nothing more than a test of faith for the pious and an excuse for theologians to produce rationalisations.

What I found most fascinating about the whole business is that it demonstrated the relative weighting given to the sanctity of gender, age, wealth and Aboriginality. It seems that Aboriginality alone confers sufficient doctrinal power to overcome the sanctity of femaleness and youth. As long as the holy words "I am offended" are chanted and the charge of committing the heresy of racism is levelled, the Protectors of the Faith will get the Inquisition under way to secure a public confession and recantation and administer the scourge with the full vigour of self-righteousness.

Yuyutsu

That story about a foootbrawler & a girl has to be the most nonsensical load of male bovine dropping I've ever encountered. Note that there are two threads devoted exclusively to the nonsense and they have been going almost forever, well since minutes after the affair at least and judging from the number of contributors, they will still be going long after the sun has expired or turned into a red dwarf or whatever happens. How anyone can put so much effort into trivia is beyond me, mind you I've always subscribed to the belief there is only one true God & He doesn't have any connection with a stupid leather ball kicked around by grown men who should have more sense. You may recall a while back that I identified footbrawl & thugby as the predominant religions of Australia, this issue is indicative of why I made that remark.

Thank you, Antiseptic, for the information and nice observations.

Thank you, Praxidice:

I meant it when I wrote earlier that I have no idea what you are talking about. By divine providence I was saved from looking at those two threads you mentioned (I have neither time nor interest to look at each and every OLO thread).

Earlier you mentioned "a few hermits cum troglodytes who are around the 90% level". I aspire to be there one day, but for now just not having a fool's box (that electrical-driven device that produces light effects and noises in line with what government and corporations want you to believe) helps bringing me to about the 50% heresy level.

If the reverse had happened and gambling Ads had been allowed to stay on prime time you would have someone arguing exactly the same but how we have been brainwashed to thinking business can can self-regulate and can be trusted to act with altruism; and that business should be able to operate completely unfettered by the State. One can be equally socially engineered to think the 'nanny state' is wrong. In fact the use of the term immediately gives the game away. It is about degrees.

It all depends on your point of view. My own POV just for example, is that we have become just as brainwashed or socially engineered to accept the globalisation free trade myths as having the most benefits in the face of growing evidence and breaches of FTAs. In the USA the anti-government movement is strong and the Tea Party has faith in the ability of the free markets. Very foolish from my POV.

One might argue that everything is socially engineered especially if we don't agree with it.

We can all write articles like this and they will be skewed by our own values and ideologies and beliefs about what is best or worst for societies. In other words they will all be biased and that is inevitable.

Dear Pelican,

<<If the reverse had happened and gambling Ads had been allowed to stay on prime time>>

The reverse of prohibiting gambling Ads on prime time is forcing TV stations to include gambling Ads in their broadcasts on prime time.

That indeed would be terrible, but I believe it was never proposed.

Mind you, I am not willing to watch not only gambling Ads, but any Ads whatsoever - I just happily don't have a TV.

All Ads (even more so gambling Ads) are disgusting and immoral, but it doesn't mean that they should be illegal. Given that there are consumers of that poison, or at least who are happy to pay that price for watching TV programs, as well as heartless producers who exploit them and produce such poisons; but given also that there is no legal (or 'religious' had churches still wielded worldly power) requirement for anyone to watch those TV channels or even to own a TV, I see no place for legal intervention. There may however be a case for prohibiting public street Ads, which attack innocent passers-by and may even produce a traffic hazard. As opposed to TV-watchers, passers-by in public space have not volunteered to suffer such assaults.

Yuyutsu - not having a fool's box (that electrical-driven device that produces light effects and noises in line with what government and corporations want you to believe)

Don't let the idiot box stop you :) One of the 90% folk near me has a 12 volt one that runs off the solar system he acquired in the clearance sale of Noahs Ark (the solar system, not the idiot box) The bloke in question couldn't do without his porn. You'll never get away from advertizing as long as you live in the rat-race (or Babylon as some would have it), what I wonder about more than the overt ads are the subliminal ones we obviously don't have a clue about. Consider the almost universal addiction of kids to Maccas ... if thats not the result of subliminal advertizing I don't know what it is.