I’m unpersuaded. You’re just defining a nobler more uplifted version of love and excluding all other kinds of not being sufficiently pure. (This fallacy is known by names like the No True Scotsman or the appeal to purity.)
This sort of goal-post shifting has always annoyed me. You’re writing an article about some great moral ideal that readers ought aspire to, like love is magic and not just an emotion like any other. It isn’t nobler or better than hate or anger.
Nobody sits around making tiny and endlessly petty distinctions and qualifications to make sure that the hatred they’re feeling is of a sufficiently correct purity, just so they can arbitrarily dismiss all other instances as being unreal.
You’re approaching this backwards. You have an ethical responsibility for your actions no matter how you *feel.* If they hate the traffic in Los Angeles, well, so what? So long as the hatred is well and correctly owned, it’s not really your business.