I assume you have no concept of what morality is since you consider morality to comprise a part of the public school curriculum. Morality is not germane to public education!
Libertarians are known to be morally devoid -you take the cake!!!
You don't know me at all, and you don't know what I think about morality in public schools, because I didn't present it as part of the discussion above. What you think you know of me you've read into my comments.
To correct your spurious assumptions:
As to your attempted slam #1, "I assume you have no concept of what morality is since you consider morality to comprise a part of the public school curriculum," of course I think government schools--let's call them what they are--are certainly imposing a morality in their students. It's an amoral, PC version of morality, but there is a morality being taught. Do you think otherwise? If you do, you probably need to look up what the word means. There is more than one definition, btw.
As to attempted slam #2, "Morality is not germane to public education!" of course not. Public education obviously has nothing to do with morality, in fact, because it's generally immoral to take from some to give to others, even on the assumption that the donors will indirectly benefit, as with schools. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor is still theft, whether it's Robin Hood or government doing it, and even if that government is doing it with the approval of the majority. But you probably meant to say that there is no morality in public education, which is just stupid. Of course there is, just as there is in academia. It's just not the moral code you'd prefer.
As to attempted slam #3," Libertarians are known to be morally devoid -you take the cake!!!" well, that's a two-parter.
First, Libertarians are known to be morally devoid to people like you, who prefer to assume that your moral code is the only one acceptable for all, and that if something is spiritually harmful under your moral code it should be banned. I'll accept that you THINK I'm morally devoid, but you probably also think women shouldn't expose their calves until they're married, either, so I won't consider that too important a critique.
Second, I'm not morally devoid at all. I believe in good and evil, just as you do. We probably differ on what those things are to some degree, but I am not an amoral person. I'm just not big on imposing the same moral code I have on the law, because I think people can reasonably disagree on things that aren't universal moral precepts.
However, I do need to note that your tone and your accusations are offensive flamebaiting without point, interjections into what was previously a pretty reasonable thread. Not a surprise, but did you really expect your comments to be more persuasive for it?