Real Life Hippies

Arguments, between two individuals who are in no way experts in the field being argued are fact-free by their very nature. That is why they are called "arguments" and not "scientific discourse" or whatnot.

Having to source and cite every argument turns the whole act of arguing into a very tideous, nasty process. Let academics worry about arguing that way in their literary journals which only they themselves read. The normal, common people do not have the time or patience for sourcing every point they make. That would kill all conversation.

...and in regards to your online reputation: you shouldn't worry about it too much. One day, you may simply stop posting, and all that reputation that you've held so dearly to your heart will be gone with the wind.

 

Worthy read? I'm on a Philip Roth kick now, but I may need something a little more thought provoking.

 

I've been reading A Short History of Decay, and his Anathemas and Admirations recently, I'm also finished the first one and I'm half way through the second one. A Short History was written in his mid twenties and Anathemas in his late sixties (so, in the forties and the late eighties) and basically I'll just say that Emil Cioran is easily my favorite author across the board. His writing is somewhere between philosophical essay and cultural commentator; he is incredibly bleak and profoundly insightful, held disdain for basically everything in existence and mocks himself in every other sentence. I'm pretty sure his writing would change your life Pavel. Definitely give him a try.

 

I shall. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'll let you know what I think too. It will take me a bit to get to him though.

 

You're basing this on one data point. I'd like to know, did he refuse to give to all charities? If so, then I would tend to agree with you, but if all he did was refuse to give to one very esoteric, non-mainstream organization, then I don't think you've proven your case.

 

In this age of Google, how hard is it to look up facts? Come on.

 

I can easily google two completely contradicting "facts" for the same argument.

 

Steve Jobs was, in fact, generous

 

Here we go again..

No, I am not basing that on one data point, I am basing that on several articles I've read both online and in within magazines; I did not say that one man considered him stingy, I said that he was notoriously stingy. The argument is that he may have donated anonymously in order to keep a low profile, but the problem with this argument is that Jobs had a reputation of purposely making it known that he refused to donate, to both institutions and to charities.

 

Of course I know what you are saying, but in that case at least one of them is not a fact, it is a lie. That's why it's important to identify trustworthy sources.

 

It's not generosity. It's a tax write-off.

 

"Trustworthy" is relative as it is. Who are we to judge what are lies and what are not? Like I said, unless you're an absolute expert in the subject... you simply have no idea.

We can argue Obamacare, per example. I fully believe that the program sucks ass and that it will hurt the poor a lot more than it will help them. I can easily source this argument. You can come back with an opposing argument, and easily source it as well... do we truly know which side is lying and which is telling the truth? Nothing is that black and white.

I'd rather skip the sourcing all together, simply say that Obamacare sucks dick, and end it at that.

 

That is cynical bullshit. The top tax rate is 39%. So if he gives $50,000,000, he only gets back $19,500,000.

 

And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with American politics. No respect for truth.

 

Do you have a source for that?

 

Hippies of old actually believed in what we were and what we were doing. Even though it was born out of two things. First was a rebellion against overly uptight social attitudes in western society, and secondary to that, we wanted the world to be a nice place where people got along, where there was justice for everyone and the whole world worked together as one for the betterment of humanity.
We also had this whole other thing going on with natural foods and meditation and what not,you all know the deal - There was a lot of hypocrisy that grew out of the movement -but despite the hypocrisy in some areas, we were genuine in how we felt and truly believed in what we were doing and our efforts to change society and the world as a whole. -Time passed, life just got in the way for some, and others just sold out-

The old hippies had free speech rallies and stuff like that. Back in the day when society was more repressive socially, Im sure you can understand the need to have all types of rallies. We wanted the freedom to express ourselves and beliefs without the fear of being repressed.
Nowadays,(IMO) many of the so called "new hippies", who consider themselves to be the intellectual elite, are only interested in free speech if it agrees with them and their beliefs.

However,at the end of the day, there is really is no need for anger,hate or becoming defensive over one position or the other. What’s important is that we realize that we are all in this together and we need to make sure we head into our future with our basic rights as human beings. Love your neighbor and “be the change you want to see in the world”.eace:
jj

 

I already recommended you to do a search instead After all, I already took notice of it somewhere else.

 

Yeah, there are some around here. You mostly see them at the free outdoor shows in the summer at parks at the drum circles before hand... and some other places. And yea, like someone else said, they are of all ages.

I also believe that the hippie spirit has persisted in some people who don't dress like stereotypical hippies, but dress otherwise. Some just dress in regular clothing but they live a typical hippie lifestyle- some are modern day (underground) ravers... (etc.)