"Please next time properly state who said a quote, first of all. You use big words, please use basic writing rules." The use of words, no matter their size, is a part of writing rules. Additionally, it should be noted that your charge against me, as before, is that my writing style is not to your liking; this is an ad hominem.
"The sentence has negative connotation in light of Stirner's beliefs. "I hate 'loving' people." Loving is a positive word. This sentence has a negative connotation." - Again, the use of evaluative language does not make a moralist. My point was not that Stirner isn't negative towards this attitude, but he specifically uses positive terms to show the irony of such positions - i.e., enthusiasm about something.
"You did not prove anything with regards to your comment on my response to the 'hierarchy of thoughts'. Ethical frameworks exist beyond the evaluation of what thoughts are good and what thoughts are bad. Having a principle at all does not make something a 'hierarchy of thoughts', you have principles." All ethical frameworks arise in historical circumstances, usually to justify a certain way of life; there are no indepedent moral entities or facts; this does not remove the possibility of real moral facts, just any sort of personal or situational independent morality. It is not about what thoughts are good or bad, it is that moral thoughts are thoughts; such that, if one is moral, it is their own ideas controlling them, and being 'above' them, that is what makes it a hierarchy.
Moreover, having a principle, that is, a maxim that one has given oneself, is fine if one accepts, of course that usually, the self is conflicted and pulled in many directions. Thus, the principle is usually, "I want to do this, but I can't - It would be wrong." Which means that one's own rule, or thought about something, is 'more powerful' than the individual who thought it - it is a hierarchy of thoughts.
"If child rape just "displeases you and your life" and you have no care beyond that, you are severely retarded." - So instead of caring and being appalled by child rape, I should not care and just follow your morals like a duty; if not, then why is a duty required if I already care? I simply could not function as a being if I spent all of my time caring about the atrocious acts that happen all over the world constantly, and neither could you, for that matter. As such, I don't spend all my time worrying and denouncing things constantly; I get on with my life and care for things close to me or others. If you require something more than being sickened by child rape, then I think you are the intellectually disabled (politically correct phraseology if your morals care for that) person.