Why do people treat unconditional love as the ideal? According to unconditional love you're not allowed to judge them or expect them to change or expect anything from them. That means if they're abusive or neglectful you're just supposed to quietly tolerate it. There should be conditions to a healthy relationship.

>>33373594 (OP)
Of course. Only your mother (if you're lucky) will ever love you unconditionally. Everyone else rightfully expects you to be a source of some value for them. Only mentally ill or retarded people (a lot here) will pine for a mommy gf or rage from entitlement and a "right" to whatever.

>>33373724
>Only mentally ill or retarded people will rage from entitlement and a "right" to whatever.

I should add, at the risk of topic-creep into pol territory, that certain groups with an evil agenda will fan the flames of such thinking.

>>33373594 (OP)
Wires get crossed, and people can change in unfortunate ways. If you're lucky, they can go back to how they were. If you're not lucky, you waited it out and came to whichever fate. There should be conditions for a healthy relationship, but sometimes the both of you or one of you hit periods of time where you're not capable of being a good partner. Relationships are complicated and nuanced because they involve two comlicated and nuanced people trying to be together and make things work despite their own individual dynamics. Even with physical abuse, you can still love the parts of that person before they became violent. That violence requires loving someone from a safe distance.

Agreed
But if being very strict on the definition then all love is conditional
To love somebody/something is conditional on them being themselves/it-being-itself
Everything is conditional if it's to have a subject (be subjected to? The subject of? Idk)
The condition is the subject
Ya know what I mean?

But if we be more lax
Then conditional is just a spectrum
Some love is more conditional than others
The typical examples being the love of a mother towards their child being less conditional than say the love of a gold digger for a rich man

Perhaps the fault is in the word love
Love is too ambiguous and broad
It could mean just any positive affect

It is a fault in the limitations of language and etymology or something something tautology/redundancy axioms lala nya nya
Like, love itself is conditional because of the very nature of it, the definition of it, carries condition-ality as a constraint
Things you love are things you love, a limited selective pool
Ain't no infinite love
Blah blah blah

Once we put exceptions
I'll love you
Except for this
Except for that
Then it's no longer conditional
A supreme mother's love
Le God's love is unconditional! Hahaha! Doesn't exist!

There's also the capacity to hate
An small animal can't do much to make you hate them, maybe indifference
A human can do a lot of things to turn your love into hate

What is hate?
Blah blah
Unconditional hate?

>>33373956
>Unconditional hate?
I doubt that that exists. I'm not the first to note that "hate" comes into forms: vulgar hate just because someone is different, and rational hate, of an individual or a group, because their behavior fucks you up.

>>33374629
>comes into forms
*comes in two forms

>>33374629
Replying to myself (LOL): But what if said group's behavior is inborn (i.e., nature rather than nurture) and therefore simply a difference? Ah, to be sure to be sure, that's food for many a pharisaical debate.

>>33373594 (OP)
>Why do people treat unconditional love as the ideal?
They're children without emotional experience so their model is Mommy

>>33373724
>Of course. Only your mother (if you're lucky) will ever love you unconditionally.
If you get a dog, it'll also love you unconditionally.