comment: >
  
  
  is not about my feelings about you, but about my belief that your nature is fundamentally good, no matter what? 
  
  These are not exclusive --- my point is just that to 'love someone' (whatever you make that to be) doesnt have to involve 'loving the actions that they have committed' . Again per your Nazi example, loving a Nazi does not necessarily imply loving Nazism or their specific acts with regards to Nazism.
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. >
  
  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 >
  
  !delta >
  
  This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
  Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
  If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  You can take this in the context of the unconditional love of Jesus Christ (agape), that the 'unconditional' in unconditional love is found upon the unconditional possibility of repentance and forgiveness. Let's try to put that in context of your example as well:
  
  Consider somebody who you’d consider to be a good candidate for being worthy of unconditional love (a parent, a child, a best friend, etc.). Now imagine if that person independently and of sound mind adopted a world view you find abhorrent (e.g., neo-Nazism).
  
  Unconditional love doesnt mean to 'love what they have done' (which seems to what you seem to be implying as the implication of loving someone) --- loving someone means that 'no matter what you did I still believe that you have a good nature and will realise that you have done wrongly'. The tale of the prodigal son probably serve as a good case example as well (if you know the story of that). >
  
  So unconditional love, on this view, is not about my feelings about you, but about my belief that your nature is fundamentally good, no matter what? I suppose, on that reading, unconditional love would manage to dodge my criticism. However, I’m not sure how compelling a conception of unconditional love that is entirely based on the concept of believing is. Most people think of love in terms of feeling, and maybe action, too. Not a knock down argument, but it does that this interpretation may be fairly idiosyncratic.