>

Yes, because here you weren't tricked, because you didn't order yourself.
But when you do it yourself, it's a different matter.
/u/bornanew123 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I'd suggest - and many psychological theories support this - that fear is the fundamental here and hatred and anger are forms of expression of that.
E.G. the dog that growls and bites is fundamentally exercising a strategy to deal with fear (fear of being hurt, hungry, of harm to family, etc.).   Hatred in real relationships ("real hate", not "i hate the dallas cowboys hate") is often seen as the proximal to love, but with fear of hurt, pain, etc. because of the power of said love.  
So...I think you've got hatred and anger which are two forms of expressing a fundamental form of fear. >

!delta This was simple and useful. It makes so much !sense and gives a new view to me. So for example, when I hate someone, and therefore don't want to meet them, what I fear is not them, but the meeting. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/iamintheforest (220∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

This is an interesting CMV. i like it.
for me, that is, in my own life... the things that cause the most fear are things that make me feel vulnerable. A generic example: were i to lose my job, i would be vulnerable to losing my house, and so i fear being made redundant. In this sense, "being vulnerable" is a state of being where I am ill equipped to successfully manage a situation.
and then... anger is (again for me) very often a cope for the state of being vulnerable. Anger activates a lot of behaviors: an assertive method of communication, a willing relinquishment of relationships (to support a more assertive method of communication), and de-valuing of potential future relationship states (i can't be hurt if i de-value a relationship). so anger, for me, doesn't exist on the "fear" continuum, but rather exists perpendicular; it is the tool i employ to stop feeling vulnerable.
and then hatred is less of an emotion... the more i think about hatred, hate is more of a rationalization. it is the justification as to why i am right, but much more than that, why "you" deserve bad. hate is the self-convincing i have to employ to justify the unhealthy application of the tool. hate is the method.
TLDR: i wouldn't put them on a common spectrum. rather, fear is a state, for which we learn anger can be a tool to resolve, and the method of deploying the tool of anger can sometimes be hateful.
i'm not suggesting that is the right way, simply that is a common way, at least for me. >

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. >

...this sounds like a Star wars dialouge. >

You did kind of walk into it to be fair, it's one of yoda's more famous quotes >

Oh, though it was familiar. >

Yep that'd be why haha >

Damn I like Yoda's personality, but he's just ugly, especially in the first versions. >

Can you be angry with someone if you don't believe they have done, or will do, something to you that you fear? >

Not OP, but another counterexample is that people are often angry with a new recruit to a job, someone who needs a lot of direction and makes a lot of mistakes. Sometimes this happens when the work involves the possibility of injury or an incompetent newbie will make the whole team look bad, but I've seen it just as much in situations where no one is physically or professionally endangered. In those cases the recruit isn't threatening anyone's authority: if anything, they improve everyone's status by comparison. They're just taking up people's time, which is annoying but not frightening.
I can imagine an evo-psych argument rooting this common emotional reaction in fear: if our ancestors' group efforts were often just barely enough to avoid violent death or starvation, then the threat of those consequences might motivate anger as a response to incompetence. (I can also imagine an evo-psych argument rooting it in competition for status instead.) But even so, I wouldn't say that a modern person expressing anger in this sort of situation actually believes (or even necessarily entertains the idea) that the newbie has "done, or will do, something to [them] that [they] fear." >


fear can not be putted in same system ranking with anger, as hate and anger were from same material.

Anger and hate are fear directed outwards, rather than inwards. >

I hate pineapple on Pizza, but I am not angry with the pineapple.  I'm not even angry with the person who put the pineapple on the pizza, I hate it personally but other people don't hate it, so why would I be mad.
there aren't many people I hate, but there are some politicians who I hate.  I hate former president Trubama.  but at the moment, the emotions I am feeling are peaceful, calm, and relaxed.  I always hate Trumbama but I very rarely feel the emotion of anger about it. >

I'm not even angry with the person who put the pineapple on the pizza
I think you should, though. >

why?  
If my neighbor likes pineapple on pizza and orders a pineapple pizza, then nothing bad has happened to me.  Nobody wronged me.  Or if I'm a birthday party or something and one of the 5 pizzas they order is pineapple.  I hate it, but I don't have to eat it.  why would I be angry.
even if you think i should be, that doesn't change the fact that i'm not.