comment: >
  
  Right, you have a good point about my use of the word should. On your breakdown of what love is, I’d say that when people are terrible enough we should stop the behaviours of love, and would be better off if we could shake the feelings of love. Is that better? 
  As for exactly what the threshold is, I think I’m not sure I could provide a list of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for when this threshold is reached, but I hardly think that’s a devastating blow against what I’m saying. 
  P.S., how do I give you a delta? I haven’t used this subreddit in years!
  !delta
context: ​
  
  Even if after all this you did not stop loving this person, I suspectthat it seems plausible to say that, were someone to tell you that yourcontinuing to love this person is unhealthy and ultimately a negativething, we’d be hard pressed to say they’re wrong.
  
  But WHY is it wrong? WHY is it unhealthy?  I don't think it's particularly helpful or healthy to tell someone they are automatically in the wrong for continuing to have feels for their problematic loved one.
  Where is this line that, when crossed, turns into someone being wrong for loving? What are the specific criteria/conditions/timeline?  At arrest? When charged? When the guilty verdict is read? Two weeks after that? Two months after that?
  Sure, there are a gazillion scenarios in which someone may stop loving someone. But your notion that there should be some set of conditions that apply to all feelings of love is not something I agree with. Even you conceded that love isn't necessarily a conscious decision.
  I'm of the belief that love is both a feeling and a behavior. The behavior part of it we have control over. The feeling part of it, not so much. Judgments like "should" are for the things we can control, not the things we can't.