That is why I compare you to a theologian. You are telling me what to think. You are telling me what you think is moral and immoral, and you expect me to agree with you. If I disagree with your axioms, then you call me a sociopath. The theologian would call me a heretic. The theologian speaks of forbidden fruit. You speak of healthy and unhealthy fruit. To me they are just fruit. I hate you both passionately.
I am simply stating what I believe.
I regard anyone who would accept aggressive violence as moral as a sociopath.
K, then. I regard anyone who would presume to decide for others what is moral and immoral as a theologian.
That is quite ironic, since it is the libertarian's stance that you should be free to follow your own moral codes - as long as you do it on your own property- and that no one has the right to impose their moral codes on others, while it is the Keynesians' stance that politician economists should decide what is moral and immoral, and force those moral codes onto others (e.g. socialism).
So does that mean you regard those who pass such morality codes as minimum wage laws, social security/welfare, housing subsidies, etc as theologians?
Those are legal codes. Why must you bring in morality?