It was in my self interest to use an ad hominem attack, though. Besides I though it was funny. The use of citation is ALSO part of writing rules, nice try however.
Stirner's "irony" is subjective, just as you think morals to be, and you think makes morals 'bad'
"it is about that moral thoughts are above". No it isn't. Very many ethical frameworks, again, beyond deontology which seems to be your only understanding of morality, only care about ethics. Additionally, I myself have thoughts I cannot do. But hey, maybe you just don't think fiction is different than reality. It would make sense with the fantasy you live in. Before you say it, I don't care if this is an ad hominem attack. You are simply trying to act objective to make yourself in the above position in the hierarchy of argument winner/loser or morally good/bad.
Morals are about care. Again, your understanding of morals is severely limited. In terms of actions that are exceptionally good, there is a magical little thing called 'virtue ethics'. There is also something known as 'collective caring'. One can care without 'taking all their time to'. You seem to think of care as an action rather than a principle, and a principle is what it is. Caring for someone, is an action. The feeling of care is not.
Again, you and Stirner are kindred spirits when it comes to needing to feel good about yourself by acting like it in your writing. I will not respond to your next message because I do not wish to waste any more time on your stupidity, and yes my morals permit bullying people who think child rape is okay. Sue me.