You will become what you hate, given that you assume a label-defining role of someone-that-you-hate. [ Given that we share many roles with one another, you will assume the role eventually. ] And by the time you've undergone any transformation, your decision to be what you once hated is justified, and you may not even hate it anymore. Any action that you once disliked, or dislike now, may be necessary at some point. And it may be necessary for you to be the perpetrator. Of course, by then you probably won't see yourself as such.
But the relativity from past-selves to future-selves reveals that the offense committed is generally as contrived as the offense taken.
Though maybe, the critical stance is better to take, on general principles. You're no more entitled to indulgences now as you were before as you will be. Young self-interest, as contrived as it may be in this relativistic schism, and the discontent in having taken offense at least serve to highlight the indulgences of the old self-entitled.
On the bright side it's unlikely you'll become everything you hate.
Imperator
Should it not go on to further that what we hate is as much an aspect of content as time?
If we hate X at 0 and Y at 1, does it stand to reason we become what we hate if we hate X at 2 and become Y at 3?
Or does it only stand that if we hate X at 0, and become X at 0, then we become what we hate?
It stands that relatively, the state of being and the emotion are entwined within a temporal position.
Should that temporal position change, should the state of being and emotion not also stand to change?
Your hypothesis seems to assume an inclusive notion of hate. If we hate X at 0, then whether time changes, we must always hate X. Therefore, if we become X at any point in time, inevitable, necessary, or justified, we become what we hate.
But if we stop hating X at 3, is it presumed we will still become what we hate if we become X at 4 or 5?
Hate should seem as relative to the time as the state of being as far as I can garner.
Or maybe I just missed something. Took a couple minutes for me to wrap my head around the terminology, so I certainly won't be discounting that possibility.....
Bacchanalian
Haha man. March 1st. Sorry it took so long for me to see the pending comment.
Consider the alternative tense to, "you will become what you hate," to be, "you are what you once hated." My argument is not necessarily, "you are what you hate," though that condition can fit as well. The whole thing actually revolves around change over time.
The main point is basically this: There's shit you hate when you're young, that you probably won't hate when you're older, but it's probably good not to lose sight of why you're now hate-able in the eyes of who you once were.
Don't worry about not quite getting it. I say things in weird ways. [ Abstruse... that's the word I've been trying to remember. ] I'm not all to proud of that but I do enjoy getting caught up in my own meticulousness.