"punks are just Hippies with violence and no peace"
Isn't peace and anti-violence what hippies stood for? So that would make punks the opposite (according to the statement). I myself have come across very few 'violent' punks. I suppose crusties are the hippies of the punk movement.

Well, as I stated before, I believe that whomever said that was maybe refering more to attitude rather than action. Where as hippies are happy, promote peace and passivist lifestyles, punks are more angry, promoting protest and a harder style of living?? I'm not saying I advocate the statement that punks are just voilent hippies, but I just wanted to see what everyone else thought. It doesn't really make a hill of beans one way or another, but its just something interesting to think about.

^
That doesn't make sense.
If I'm following your statement then a Punk can = Happy Burger King Employee + Violence.

Being a hippie is completely different from being a punk and if you take away that calm, passive attitude then you would have a regular person.
I mean seriously, if Jim Morrison got really angry you wouldn't have called him a punk.
If Sid Vicious stopped being so angry you wouldn't call him a hippie....
Jeez.

People always say punk is 'thinking for yourself', I partly believe this but punk was around before this statement was made. I believe you have to like the music at least to be punk. I also don't see why people put down anyone wearing the punk fashion as 'fashion punks'. Possibly all the punks used to wear that get-up, so why now is it deemed try hard by many of the non-looking punks?

Because most people who try and dress the 'get-up' really just listen to the music and have one or two friends that have a punk mentality. These punk friends talk about cool stuff like rebellion and anarchy and whatnot and these other people say, "Wow cool, I want to be like them."
I also think that people can also be classified as punks even if they don't like the music because Punks "think freely" without the influence of others on the decisions they make.
I mean, punk does have two definitions.
1. Punk-Rock Music.
2. A rebellious person who speaks their mind whenever they please and is always trying to find alternative methods of doing things.

I think people that follow others and don't speak their minds but only listen to the music are deemed to be "fashion punks".
That's my opinion on the matter.

yeah but it's impossible to think without the influence of others.

not impossible, just takes confidence or a real belief in whatever it is your thinking.

yes but this believe would have most lightly have been influenced. Only someone who had never met anyone and lived on there oddy knocky could think competely for themselves.

it just takes a little more originality to be a free thinker. I understand what your saying though, most actions are in some form or another influenced by what youve already experianced or by witnessing others experiance it, i agree to an extent but to say it is impossible for someone to think for themselves without outside influences defining their judgements or decisions seems odd to me. Sometimes you have to go out on a limb and try new things for yourself without someone telling you what to expect and base the results on your own experiance then come to a conclusion. its not too difficult to be yourself. Just takes balls.

^ Good Point :clap: