MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 2:46pm:


Private schools aren't a guarantee of a better educational result for children. Not always. In fact, many are out performed by public schools. I know because my wife and I looked extensively when our children reached school age.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 1:09pm:



If I see a white, colour skin indeterminate pilot, I hope like hell they are the best qualified.

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 4:18pm:


He didn't have to.

What he said was still racist.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 4:24pm:

Leroy wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 3:19pm:


Large schools tend to have more and sometimes better resources than smaller ones because there are more students from which the school can receive voluntary fee contributions. Additionally, the amount of funding a public school receives from the state government is directly proportional to the size of the student population. Otherwise you could have small schools with less than 50 students receiving more funding than schools with 700 students.

With regard to the quality of education, a large part of that comes down to who is teaching the children. Contrary to popular belief, private school teachers are NOT paid more than their public school colleagues. In fact, more often than not, the opposite is true except in a rare handful of cases. Public school teachers get paid more and are generally more attractive to most entering the profession. Most private schools are religious, and so attract teachers because of faith to a large degree - although not always. The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) sets the overarching curriculum framework based on the Australian Curriculum, which public and private schools in NSW must follow. Private schools may employ different teaching methodologies, but the curriculums (i.e. what must be taught in each subject) are pretty standard.

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 12:50pm:


Kirk's comments are racist because they rest on a blanket assumption that a person's competence in a professional role, whether as a pilot or surgeon, is determined not by their training, qualifications, or individual merit, but by their skin colour.

He isn't merely "criticising DEI", he's pushing a racist narrative that black people in elite or high-stakes professions are inherently less trustworthy. His invocation of DEI is nothing more than a fig leaf to normalise racial stereotyping.

If you've decided that this somehow isn't racist, then there's little point in continuing with you. You've chosen your truth, and it conveniently aligns with what you want to believe rather than what is real.

SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 6:52pm:


I don't know if you are just trying to out stupid greg but you are calling Kirk racist because he explores what people think, read his words again and you will see (if you actually look). He is talking about does freedom of speech spread to thought crime.

Quote:


I know putting his words into context destroys your racist theory but when you are looking down a barrel don't yell fire.