alright, You've got a point, but there's a slight misunderstanding here and I quote you:- "lack of knowledge does not equal hatred"
I never meant to say that any kind of lack of knowledge equals hatred. I meant to say that most kinds of hatred are ignited by lack of knowledge. example:- someone says " I Hate Bieber" have you tried to listen to him? talked to him personally? knew his personal life? his real attitude as a human being? Most will say No to all of those questions. but they simply hate him because he sucks as an artist. am I right?
now back to your example of Hitler. while I'm not arguing that he was a piece of shit, we did know him because of a vile act: The Holocaust. that was our first experience with Hitler. what if we knew him before that??
Suppose I were to argue that hate is fear. I could easily list a lot of examples of people hating things that they are afraid of. Whilst there are counter-examples it wouldn't be difficult for a person committed to this hypothesis to find clever ways around them, if they really wanted to.
Nonetheless, I think it's wrong. It's very easy to come up with this sort of theory. What I just did above isn't significantly more implausible than what you did. It's not stupid or anything. It's not so ridiculous that only a crazy person could come up with it. But there isn't any particular reason to think that this theory, rather one of the many others we could come up with, is true.
I mean, take a look at the predictive power of your theory. If lack of knowledge = hate then I should hate, for example, the field of pharmacogenomics, since I know almost nothing about it. But I don't hate it, on the contrary I recognise its enormous value to human society. So, this is a failed prediction.
However, suppose you have some response to this. Suppose that, whatever I say, you find some way of making it fit with your theory. This is not a good thing. If your theory is compatible with everything that could happen then it can't tell me what's going to happen! You can only predict things after they've happened (which anyone can do). It making a failed prediction that falsifies the theory is in many ways better than this, which amounts to not really making predictions at all. If your theory doesn't do that then it doesn't really help me understand hate. It doesn't explain hatred.
This is the central dilemma of explanations: they have to make claims about the world in order to help us understand the world but if they stick their necks out like that then there is a risk that they might be shown to be wrong. I think that, when your theory makes claims about the world, it gets some things right but it also gets a lot of things wrong and the only means of repairing it is to basically relinquish its ability to explain things at all.
It's not quite right, in other words.