NationStates Jolt Archive

To me, being lazy means you just wanna enjoy life to it's fullest, so I don't see anything wrong with being lazy. My question is, why does society have no respect for those who are lazy? And for those of you who don't respect lazy people, why don't they deserve your respect?

To me, being lazy means you just wanna enjoy life to it's fullest, so I don't see anything wrong with being lazy. My question is, why does society have no respect for those who are lazy? And for those of you who don't respect lazy people, why don't they deserve your respect?

You obviously don't understand being lazy.

Being truly lazy means doing whatever it is you have to do to the best of your ability as efficiently as possible so that:

You don't have to do it again
You finish as soon as possible
It stays done as long as possible


That way you maximise your leisure time.

The difficulty with this is that people keep on asking you to do things because you do them well.

Thus, the truly lazy person keeps on having to say no to other people - which they don't like hearing. Thus society, in general, does not like lazy people - but not in the way you thought.

To me, being lazy means you just wanna enjoy life to it's fullest, so I don't see anything wrong with being lazy. My question is, why does society have no respect for those who are lazy? And for those of you who don't respect lazy people, why don't they deserve your respect?

They just don't. Lazy people are.....


...zzzzzzz

You obviously don't understand being lazy.

Being truly lazy means doing whatever it is you have to do to the best of your ability as efficiently as possible so that:

You don't have to do it again
You finish as soon as possible
It stays done as long as possible


That way you maximise your leisure time.

The difficulty with this is that people keep on asking you to do things because you do them well.

Thus, the truly lazy person keeps on having to say no to other people - which they don't like hearing. Thus society, in general, does not like lazy people - but not in the way you thought.
Thank you for the information. :)

Because society hates those that take time to enjoy things that aren't hard work. Like lying on the couch, or watching TV.

Thank you for the information. :)

You're welcome. ;)

I'd tell you but I can't be bothered to explain

I'd tell you but I can't be bothered to explain

No, that's apathy. Get it right!

No, that's apathy. Get it right!

Apathy would be: If I cared, I'd tell you, but I don't...

I'm too lazy to wait for, say, the elevator. Elevator's taking too long...fuck it, stairs.

Apathy would be: If I cared, I'd tell you, but I don't...

I don't really care.;):tongue:

I'm too lazy to wait for, say, the elevator. Elevator's taking too long...fuck it, stairs.

But taking the stairs would take more energy. You sound more impatient then lazy...

To me, being lazy means you just wanna enjoy life to it's fullest, so I don't see anything wrong with being lazy. My question is, why does society have no respect for those who are lazy? And for those of you who don't respect lazy people, why don't they deserve your respect?

as I told other people...

"Necessity is not the mother of invention... Laziness is."

They just don't. Lazy people are.....


...zzzzzzz

Will type words later...

"Lazy" is subjective. To me it's not this:

You obviously don't understand being lazy.

Being truly lazy means doing whatever it is you have to do to the best of your ability as efficiently as possible so that:

You don't have to do it again
You finish as soon as possible
It stays done as long as possible


That sounds like being smart.

I define lazy as a someone who puts their own short term comfort before doing something they signed up for. That or children who don't want to do chores they're told by parents. So I guess lazy means different things between children and adult.

"Lazy" is subjective. To me it's not this:



That sounds like being smart.

I define lazy as a someone who puts their own short term comfort before doing something they signed up for. That or children who don't want to do chores they're told by parents. So I guess lazy means different things between children and adult.

Yes

Lazy = Smart

Another reason why the lazy are disliked.

I see lazy people as work-shirkers, not people who don't do a lot but do it well, but those who actively avoid doing anything. So it's a bit different from how the OP and AB Again see it.

Yes

Lazy = Smart

Another reason why the lazy are disliked.

Learn to read or assert your point better. I was denying 'lazy = smart'.

To me, being lazy means you just wanna enjoy life to it's fullest, so I don't see anything wrong with being lazy. My question is, why does society have no respect for those who are lazy? And for those of you who don't respect lazy people, why don't they deserve your respect?
But why do they? Respect is a privilege, not a right. It is a feeling towards someone you consider to be setting an example for yourself - laziness is no good example.


I want to enjoy life to the fullest much more than most people I know, and much more than most people here. Unless the luddites stop slowing down medical research, I won't have enough time to carry out a tenth of the things I really want to do and I know I can do, so I can't afford to squander it. I enjoy life fuller than others, and there are always things I can do to get new experiences - why waste the time at the same old experience of lying on the couch.

Learn to read or assert your point better. I was denying 'lazy = smart'.

I know you were denying it. That is what your post said. I, however, was affirming that your interpretation of my description of lazy as being smart was correct. I simply disagree with your definition of lazy. My point was exactly that lazy = smart, regardless of your disagreement.

OK perhaps you aren't lazy enough to realise that I had condensed all this into into three words and an equality sign, but I hope you get it now.

A rich person who lives a life of self-indulgent leisure is just a lucky bugger. A poor person who does that is "lazy." From structuring our lives around getting money, we invent a virtue which is quite simply: to have money. This "virtue" outweighs the "vice" of laziness.

I know you were denying it. That is what your post said. I, however, was affirming that your interpretation of my description of lazy as being smart was correct. I simply disagree with your definition of lazy. My point was exactly that lazy = smart, regardless of your disagreement.

Yeah, this makes sense. :rolleyes:

I define laziness as a person that doesn't do the things that they are responsible for. It doesn't matter how much work you have, if you do the work that is required of you, I consider that adequate. In all realms of life.

I don't really care about lazy people. I find them amusing and sometimes refreshing. My only problem is when they expect me to compensate for their laziness. Such as covering their work or paying for their lifestyle.

I know you were denying it. That is what your post said. I, however, was affirming that your interpretation of my description of lazy as being smart was correct. I simply disagree with your definition of lazy. My point was exactly that lazy = smart, regardless of your disagreement.

I don't think I agree. You seem to make an assumption, that work is always a burden to be minimized. This is a major assumption, really, if one considers the wide range of things in which a person can be lazy. It's not just in contracted work.

For instance, to not clean one's room is lazy. While this might impact the person's ability to do work (dirty clothes, or lost tools) it doesn't need to to be considered laziness in your "maximum effect for minimum effort" work model. It is simply a bad decision, and the only party who necessarily suffers from it is the lazy person themself.

The point you initially made about the efficient person being given more work was funny and true. A shame it wasn't pursued for its humour instead of its truth.

I don't really care about lazy people. I find them amusing and sometimes refreshing. My only problem is when they expect me to compensate for their laziness. Such as covering their work or paying for their lifestyle.

Exactly, except for the amusing part. I don't find them amusing, I find them predictable, and typically they're not very smart. They love to pose and say stuff about "if I tried I would be" blah blah.

Apathy would be: If I cared, I'd tell you, but I don't...

Up With Apat

I don't think I agree. You seem to make an assumption, that work is always a burden to be minimized. This is a major assumption, really, if one considers the wide range of things in which a person can be lazy. It's not just in contracted work.

For instance, to not clean one's room is lazy. While this might impact the person's ability to do work (dirty clothes, or lost tools) it doesn't need to to be considered laziness in your "maximum effect for minimum effort" work model. It is simply a bad decision, and the only party who necessarily suffers from it is the lazy person themself.

The point you initially made about the efficient person being given more work was funny and true. A shame it wasn't pursued for its humour instead of its truth.

I will still claim that the lazy person, the person who wants to have the maximum possible time to do whatever they want - be it nothing or some pastime, will be efficient.

The example of cleaning one's room is a good example in that there are basically two reasons why anyone would clean a room. Either it is being demanded of them by someone with the authority to so demand (mother, wife etc.) and not doing so will lead to constant interruptions plus long sessions of guilt farming which makes it in the interest of the lazy one to clean the room effectively and efficiently. Or it is being done because the doer wants it done. Now if the doer is lazy, this can only occur if not cleaning the room results in more net effort than cleaning it. I can not think of any other reason why anyone would clean a room. (perhaps obsessive compulsion - but that hardly applies to the discussion on laziness)

My comments were not intended as humorous though this does not bother me - they are what I consider to be true. That they are unexpected and thus possess one of the prime characteristics of humour is a pure side effect.

Exactly, except for the amusing part. I don't find them amusing, I find them predictable, and typically they're not very smart. They love to pose and say stuff about "if I tried I would be" blah blah.

These are people that I would describe as idle and arrogant, not lazy.

I respect and admire lazy people. I am one, it comes with the territory.

Bêûh, too lazy to read this thread...

These are people that I would describe as idle and arrogant, not lazy.

I feel like you're combining a smart person and a lazy person. There are however lazy stupid people who drag their feet in everything they do, despite this meaning they spend alot more time doing the thing they don't want to do.

I feel like you're combining a smart person and a lazy person. There are however lazy stupid people who drag their feet in everything they do, despite this meaning they spend alot more time doing the thing they don't want to do.

It may well be that from my perspective only smart people can be lazy - those that want to do as little as possible but are not clever enough, end up doing more as you point out. But how is doing more being lazy?

It seems to me, from this, that intelligence is an essential characteristic of the lazy.

English is a wonderful language in that it has a plethora of adjectives that have subtle differences in meaning. Here is where I identify a difference between lazy and idle. The lazy really do do the least possible work, and I admire them greatly. The idle, on the other hand, end up working way too hard and create additional work for everyone around them. They are to be despised because they create unnecessary demands upon other people.

I will still claim that the lazy person, the person who wants to have the maximum possible time to do whatever they want - be it nothing or some pastime, will be efficient.

If we define laziness as "avoiding work" then yes. Looking at it again, I see that was probably the sense the OP used it in.

But work can be satisfying in its own right, so minimizing it (relative to it's productive ends) does not simply minimize the person's suffering. The "idle rich" -- while I don't cry for them -- are not more happy than those who do a job they believe in for an average wage. Certainly not in proportion to how much money they have, anyway.

As ever, I am quibbling instead of addressing the question directly. But can you see the circular nature of an argument "minimize work to maximize leisure is rational behaviour"? It assumes that one pole (work) is pure misery, the other (leisure) is pure joy.

While this may be true for many people, making an assumption of it isn't a good thing for anyone to do. People should hold out some hope and leave open the possibility that their work can be pleasurable, and their leisure productive.

The example of cleaning one's room is a good example in that there are basically two reasons why anyone would clean a room. Either it is being demanded of them by someone with the authority to so demand (mother, wife etc.) and not doing so will lead to constant interruptions plus long sessions of guilt farming which makes it in the interest of the lazy one to clean the room effectively and efficiently. Or it is being done because the doer wants it done. Now if the doer is lazy, this can only occur if not cleaning the room results in more net effort than cleaning it. I can not think of any other reason why anyone would clean a room. (perhaps obsessive compulsion - but that hardly applies to the discussion on laziness)

Is habit obsessive compulsion? A habit of cleanliness is a very good thing for a person to have, if purely for their own benefit. They achieve an end -- the clean room -- with a minimum of conscious effort.

Where I have bolded is where you have placed the same assumption as before. Again, you get a very sound logical conclusion, when really I think it's not so clear-cut.

The assumption that one thing (what is done) is good, and the other (the doing) is bad, does lead to a very firm result: minimize effort (bad) for results (good.) However, I don't think it's a safe assumption.

What say we to the cabinet-maker whose hobby is cabinet-making? What say we to the nurse who spends their weekend doing charity work? Are these people "obsessive compulsive" ... or the luckiest of people, whose preferred activity happens to be rewarded for its benefits to others?

My comments were not intended as humorous though this does not bother me - they are what I consider to be true. That they are unexpected and thus possess one of the prime characteristics of humour is a pure side effect.

Perhaps I laugh because the truth is painful.

God damn it, I wish I could be concise.

Psychobabble galore.

Lazy people suck, that's my definition.

Psychobabble galore.

Lazy people suck, that's my definition.

ah, but the truely lazy won't suck.

too much effort on their part.

Laziness isn't taking things easy or moving at a slower pace, it's neglecting the responsibilities you do have at the expense of other people. If you want a slower pace, go for it and accept the benefits and downsides that come along with it, and there are plenty of both. Otherwise, you're just wasting other people's time and money and that's just rude and irresponsible as well as a major disservice to the people who rely on you.

To me, being lazy means you just wanna enjoy life to it's fullest, so I don't see anything wrong with being lazy. My question is, why does society have no respect for those who are lazy? And for those of you who don't respect lazy people, why don't they deserve your respect?

I have to ask a few questions, all more or less along the lines of "wtf?"

When you say "lazy" in the first sentence, are you referring to physical activity, paid employment, onerous responsibilities ... or what, exactly? This seems to be the same circular argument that AB Again made more rigorously. Work bad, leisure good, therefore minimize one while maximizing the other ... not a moral issue at all, but rational free will.

Secondly, can you put this "society respects x" thing in more specific terms? I mean, isn't it intuitive that productive people (those who work a lot and effectively) are of more benefit to society than those who only do what they have to? Isn't it possible that the "valuation of society" is really a part of your own conscience ... because surely, if you truly disdained it, it would be a foolish mistake by others not a burden on you.

And finally, can you imagine some activity which you would enjoy, and do purely for its own sake, which would have benefits to others and therefore be rewarded with a wage?

(On this last point: I don't know what your preferred activity is. At a guess, I suppose you enjoy sex. Whether it's realistic or not, is there some reason you would NOT take a wage for having sex lots?)

Psychobabble galore.

Lazy people suck, that's my definition.

A very lazy and sucky definition it is too.

Laziness isn't taking things easy or moving at a slower pace, it's neglecting the responsibilities you do have at the expense of other people. If you want a slower pace, go for it and accept the benefits and downsides that come along with it, and there are plenty of both. Otherwise, you're just wasting other people's time and money and that's just rude and irresponsible as well as a major disservice to the people who rely on you.

The bolded I agree with. Unless we're looking at extreme cases like welfare fraud, the economy provides quite enough incentives for effort, and lack of same for idleness.

Doesn't need to be perfect, just needs to be there. Idleness does not have to be punished, it carries its own consequences. As long as the "free ride" is less pleasurable, there is incentive enough.

"Disservice" is a weasel word. It sounds like "lack of service" but really it means to do harm to. Freedom of association solves that.

Most non-socialist societies have no respect for lazy people because, they just take from the community and don't give back. Why should people who work hard, have to share it with lazy people. Don't get me wrong, I love being lazy on a rainy Saturday, but I don't think it should be a way of life.

I have to ask a few questions, all more or less along the lines of "wtf?"

When you say "lazy" in the first sentence, are you referring to physical activity, paid employment, onerous responsibilities ... or what, exactly? This seems to be the same circular argument that AB Again made more rigorously. Work bad, leisure good, therefore minimize one while maximizing the other ... not a moral issue at all, but rational free will.

Secondly, can you put this "society respects x" thing in more specific terms? I mean, isn't it intuitive that productive people (those who work a lot and effectively) are of more benefit to society than those who only do what they have to? Isn't it possible that the "valuation of society" is really a part of your own conscience ... because surely, if you truly disdained it, it would be a foolish mistake by others not a burden on you.

And finally, can you imagine some activity which you would enjoy, and do purely for its own sake, which would have benefits to others and therefore be rewarded with a wage?

(On this last point: I don't know what your preferred activity is. At a guess, I suppose you enjoy sex. Whether it's realistic or not, is there some reason you would NOT take a wage for having sex lots?)
Sex is too much work for me. too much work to find a girl willing to fuck such an ugly guy like me. And then there's all that body movement, using all sorts of muscles you never heard of. Masturbation is far less work. I am that lazy. As for activities I enjoy that could be rewarded with a wage, I find playing computer games to be the one activity I enjoy most. So, I guess I could get a job as a video game tester...

Most non-socialist societies have no respect for lazy people because, they just take from the community and don't give back.

So your definition of "society" does not include "socialist societies" ?

Do you have any explanation for the existence of such societies? I see no evidence of them "withering away" so Historical Accident won't cut it.

Sex is too much work for me. too much work to find a girl willing to fuck such an ugly guy like me. And then there's all that body movement, using all sorts of muscles you never heard of. Masturbation is far less work. I am that lazy. As for activities I enjoy that could be rewarded with a wage, I find playing computer games to be the one activity I enjoy most. So, I guess I could get a job as a video game tester...

Keep that thought.

In school, one of my classmates would truant to go surfing. Not every day, but when the surf was particularly outstanding he wouldn't turn up until the tide turned. Detention worked, and he kept the truancy down ... but it was really obvious that he didn't like school and did like surfing.

So he got the lecture every week. "No-one ever made money surfing. You'll end up in a dead-end job you hate unless you get better marks." Kid's name was Barton Lynch. Ha ha.

Keep that thought.

In school, one of my classmates would truant to go surfing. Not every day, but when the surf was particularly outstanding he wouldn't turn up until the tide turned. Detention worked, and he kept the truancy down ... but it was really obvious that he didn't like school and did like surfing.

So he got the lecture every week. "No-one ever made money surfing. You'll end up in a dead-end job you hate unless you get better marks." Kid's name was Barton Lynch. Ha ha.
Who?:confused:

Who?:confused:

He made money surfing. That's all you need to know.

BunnySaurus Bugsii So your definition of "society" does not include "socialist societies" ?

Do you have any explanation for the existence of such societies? I see no evidence of them "withering away" so Historical Accident won't cut it

When did I say anything like that?

I was saying that in a true socialist societies, you will usually be paid the sames as everyone else, no matter how lazy you are.

In a free market society, Lazy people in the workplace are generaly casted out, and not tolerated. As I see it, people can be Lazy at work, and people can be lazy at home.

Some people seem to have their definition of lazy messed up.


–adjective
1. averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent.
2. causing idleness or indolence: a hot, lazy afternoon.
3. slow-moving; sluggish: a lazy stream.
4. (of a livestock brand) placed on its side instead of upright.
–verb (used without object)
5. to laze.

The bolded is what I am about 98% certain the OP means.

AB Again, your definition for lazy is more like a definition for prudent. Getting all of the necessary work completed in a timely fashion and enjoying your new found free time is not being lazy.

Lazy people shirk responsibility for themselves and others, some of them cut corners, and some of them go so far as to be inactive, others are so inactive that they need Richard Simmons to bring a crane to their home, cut off the roof, and lift them on to the back of a flatbed semi trailer. I give one or two people I know about 2 years before that happens...

There is another type of lazy too which can be just as bad; people who are otherwise very active but avoid responsibility at all turns.

To me, being lazy means you just wanna enjoy life to it's fullest, so I don't see anything wrong with being lazy. My question is, why does society have no respect for those who are lazy? And for those of you who don't respect lazy people, why don't they deserve your respect?

I'd hardly call sitting around doing jack shit all day "living life to its fullest."

Also, I'm too lazy to tell you why I don't respect lazy people.

But taking the stairs would take more energy. You sound more impatient then lazy...

You'd think that, but no, it's really just extreme laziness.

I'm also too lazy to get fat. Because half the time I'm hungry I'm too lazy go get something to eat.

Hard working, ambitious, go-getters are the source of most of societies ills. If more people were lazy slobs, we'd be a lot better off.

Remember, lazy people define their lifestyle expectations downwards in order to remove the need for effort. This is generally a good thing for people in the west.

Some people seem to have their definition of lazy messed up.

–adjective
1. averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent.
2. causing idleness or indolence: a hot, lazy afternoon.
3. slow-moving; sluggish: a lazy stream.
4. (of a livestock brand) placed on its side instead of upright.
–verb (used without object)
5. to laze.


The bolded is what I am about 98% certain the OP means.

AB Again, your definition for lazy is more like a definition for prudent. Getting all of the necessary work completed in a timely fashion and enjoying your new found free time is not being lazy.

My definition for lazy coincides exactly and completely with the definition you bolded. If you are averse or disinclined to work, activity or effort, you will surely take whatever steps are necessary to minimize this. The question is really about what are the most effective measures to minimise work, activity or effort?

Lazy people shirk responsibility for themselves and others, some of them cut corners, and some of them go so far as to be inactive, others are so inactive that they need Richard Simmons to bring a crane to their home, cut off the roof, and lift them on to the back of a flatbed semi trailer. I give one or two people I know about 2 years before that happens...

There is another type of lazy too which can be just as bad; people who are otherwise very active but avoid responsibility at all turns.

Avoiding responsibility is an effective strategy if and only if there is some person or entity to take on this responsibility for you. Where there is a welfare state or some such support network, then the lazy can depend upon that. However there are many places where no such support system exists. In these places avoiding responsibility is not just a form of being lazy, it is a method of committing suicide.

He made money surfing. That's all you need to know.

Yeah, but I bet he still busted his ass to make good money and to establish himself in a competitive field. Just because you're not working hard in school doesn't mean you're not working hard...

I will still claim that the lazy person, the person who wants to have the maximum possible time to do whatever they want
Laziness is not about saving up your time for whatever you want. If you wanted that, you'd be sleeping 5 hours a day, working intensely, etc., i.e. be the very opposite of lazy.
It's not about time at all. Laziness is about living through the life with trying to avoid or minimize the effort, specifically at every given moment.


You're just playing the olde goode redefinition game.

Laziness is not about saving up your time for whatever you want. If you wanted that, you'd be sleeping 5 hours a day, working intensely, etc., i.e. be the very opposite of lazy.
It's not about time at all. Laziness is about living through the life with trying to avoid or minimize the effort, specifically at every given moment.


You're just playing the olde goode redefinition game.

You may think that I am redefining the term lazy, but I would deny that. When I see the existing definition of the term, that quoted by SaintB, for example, I consider what courses of action, behaviours etc. would best satisfy that definition.

Need I repeat again, the conclusion that I draw? So far no one has shown that this conclusion is in any way inaccurate or misfounded.

Laziness is about minimal effort - we agree on that. Now minimal effort can be construed as being minimal momentary effort or minimal total effort.
I argue that the total effort is what counts if you are, by nature, averse to effort. If you are just 'feeling lazy' then the present effort would be significant, but I thought we were discussing laziness as a personality trait and not as a momentary inclination.

I think in some respects I'm going to have to side with AB here. Laziness, in my definition, would be spending the maximum amount of time in leisure. That maximum, on the other hand is not necessarily all. Lazy people still have to do stuff. I would say that a lazy person does what is required by those around him, or even himself or his circumstances, but does it as quickly and painlessly as possible to spend more time doing what he DOES want to do.

As an example: I'm in my final year of high school. In under two weeks, my final examinations start. They determine my final score, which sets the direction of my next 10 years of life. Everyone around me is stressed, working hard, killing themselves, stayiing up late studying.

Me? I'm lazy. I work my ass off when I'm AT school. I don't muck around, I don't talk unless I've got a question to ask, I concentrate, and I always have. This means I can do almost no homework, and gives me ultimate freedom for leisure time, such as the girlfriend or NS. I would say that is beiing lazy: I know I could get a brilliant score (I'm lucky that my parents are clever), but I don't need one, I want to do arts. So I work enough to get that magic number to get into my arts course, but what's the point of working more? I'm not hurting anyone by not, in fact I'm letting those with a desire to get a better score reach that goal, by not competing at that same level. But I'm not working hard either, I'm enjoying life to the fullest. I'm actually ENJOYING my final exam period.

If I was idle, on the other hand, I wouldn't be working at school. This would either mean an increased workload at home, and thus a reduction in leisure time, or I wouldn't get into the uni I want, which would cause all sorts of hardships, as I would have to find some other way into the area of interest for me. This would cause hassle for everyone. Much better if I work at school, and enjoy my lazy time at home.

It's a pretty pedantic destinction, sure, but it's enough of one.

Laziness is about minimal effort - we agree on that. Now minimal effort can be construed as being minimal momentary effort or minimal total effort.
Both matter, and I'd say the amplitude of effort is clearly more important than duration. The ultimate in lazy man's job is a security guard. It stays the ultimate in lazy jobs, despite low pay and often long hours, since it takes nearly no effort.

Now, one could earn the same amount in crab fishing, working one week a year, and have the rest to himself, but we surely don't see crowds of security guards flocking to these jobs. Why is so? I think we all know, if we put demagogy away. Lazy people won't sign up for even one day of such exhaustive labor, even if without hazard.





I would say that a lazy person does what is required by those around him, How should we then call those who don't do what is required by those around them? And, also, does it mean Wally is not lazy anymore?

Me? I'm lazy. I work my ass off when I'm AT school. [...]
If I was idle, on the other hand, I wouldn't be working at school.
This is redefining words. With maybe a bit of reclaiming, like gays these days calling themselves fags, although it's sort of the opposite. But mostly just redefinition.

hmmm...

Laziness to me means putting forth minimal effort.

buying a dishwasher because it's easier to toss the dishes into the machine than it is to hand wash them... and leaving it in there, taking out only what you will use.

Putting your clothes into the drier and leaving it in there because that takes less effort than actually taking it out and folding it/hanging it up.

Hanging your wash out and leaving it there. taking it down only to wear. (same as drier.)

Buying a cat because cats don't need to be walked.

making a beer chucking fridge because you don't want to get up from your la-Z-boy to get a beer yourself.

Driving to the store... one block away.

not necessarly doing work to maximize leasure, but to do the work that minimizes one's impact on their leasure.

such as getting a job that doesn't require strenous activity.

My definition for lazy coincides exactly and completely with the definition you bolded. If you are averse or disinclined to work, activity or effort, you will surely take whatever steps are necessary to minimize this.


No, that is being prudent... maximizing efficiency to minimize time doing labor is NOT lazy, that is prudent.

Laziness is the total disregard for labor and responsibility. Lazy people avoid work at all costs

Prudent: Working as efficiently and quickly as possible to minimize effort and maximize liesure time.

Lazy: Not working.

Is that good enough for you?

No, that is being prudent... maximizing efficiency to minimize time doing labor is NOT lazy, that is prudent.

Laziness is the total disregard for labor and responsibility. Lazy people avoid work at all costs

Prudent: Working as efficiently and quickly as possible to minimize effort and maximize liesure time.

Lazy: Not working.

Is that good enough for you?

If you want to interpret lazy that way, then fine by me. However it is in conflict with the definition you yourself provided and I prefer to avoid redefining words whenever possible, it is too much like hard work. :tongue:

Averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent.

Averse and Disinclined - Unwilling too

Work, Activity, Exertion - Anything that requires energy

Indolent - Slothful

In layman's terms - Unwilling to do anything that requires energy

If you get up off your lame ass and do the shit your supposed to get done and then spend the rest of your time enjoying yourself you are not being lazy.

If you lay around and do nothing despite the fact that there are several things that you need to do you are being lazy.

Its simple to understand the difference between doing something and doing nothing. It seems like you are being deliberatly obtuse.

Averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent.

Averse and Disinclined - Unwilling too

Work, Activity, Exertion - Anything that requires energy

Indolent - Slothful

In layman's terms - Unwilling to do anything that requires energy

If you get up off your lame ass and do the shit your supposed to get done and then spend the rest of your time enjoying yourself you are not being lazy.

If you lay around and do nothing despite the fact that there are several things that you need to do you are being lazy.

Its simple to understand the difference between doing something and doing nothing. It seems like you are being deliberatly obtuse.

First, I am not being deliberately obtuse, I am merely defending a reasonable and justifiable understanding of the term lazy.

In layman's terms glass is a solid not a liquid, this however does not mean that glass is a solid - it isn't it is a liquid. So let us leave laymen aside huh.

"Averse and Disinclined - Unwilling to": we agree

"Work, Activity, Exertion - Anything that requires energy": Acceptable

So where is the problem. It appears to be that you can not see how being unwilling to do things that require energy would result in your planning how to expend the minimum energy in total. For me this makes sense, but apparently it does not to you. Where in the definition is there anything that implies that a lazy person can not be an efficient person?

So where is the problem. It appears to be that you can not see how being unwilling to do things that require energy would result in your planning how to expend the minimum energy in total. For me this makes sense, but apparently it does not to you. Where in the definition is there anything that implies that a lazy person can not be an efficient person?

Because a lazy person wouldn't want to waste the energy trying to be efficient. You haven't met an actual lazy person have you?

Because a lazy person wouldn't want to waste the energy trying to be efficient. You haven't met an actual lazy person have you?

I have met a few lazy people, and many idle people. They are very different.

"waste the energy trying to be efficient" !??!! Being efficient, by definition, is using the least energy - where is the waste?

Do try to understand. I don't care if you agree, but at least try to see the point.

I have met a few lazy people, and many idle people. They are very different.

"waste the energy trying to be efficient" !??!! Being efficient, by definition, is using the least energy - where is the waste?

Do try to understand. I don't care if you agree, but at least try to see the point.

I see your point but you don't see mine. An effiicient person will get things done, properly, and quickly.

A lazy person would simply rather not be bothered to do anything, let alone try to figure out how they could do something easily and right when not doing it suits thier motives far better.

In layman's terms glass is a solid not a liquid, this however does not mean that glass is a solid - it isn't it is a liquid. So let us leave laymen aside huh.

Actually, glass is not a liquid, but an amorphous solid. Oh how I do love to play the pedant :tongue:

I'm too busy to give a crap what lazy people are doing or not doing, or to listen to their whining about how they get no respect for not doing it.

Are lazy people particularly narcissistic?

These are people that I would describe as idle and arrogant, not lazy.

Etymology:
perhaps from Middle Low German lasich feeble; akin to Middle High German erleswen to become weak
Date:
1549

1 a: disinclined to activity or exertion : not energetic or vigorous b: encouraging inactivity or indolence <a lazy summer day>2: moving slowly : sluggish3: droopy , lax <a rabbit with lazy ears>4: placed on its side <lazy E livestock brand>5: not rigorous or strict <lazy scholarship>
— la·zi·ly Listen to the pronunciation of lazily \-zə-lē\ adverb
— la·zi·ness Listen to the pronunciation of laziness \-zē-nəs\ noun
— la·zy·ish Listen to the pronunciation of lazyish \-zē-ish\ adjective
synonyms lazy , indolent , slothful mean not easily aroused to activity. lazy suggests a disinclination to work or to take trouble <take-out foods for lazy cooks>. indolent suggests a love of ease and a dislike of movement or activity <the heat made us indolent>. slothful implies a temperamental inability to act promptly or speedily when action or speed is called for <fired for being slothful about filling orders>.


www.m-w.com

I feel like you're combining a smart person and a lazy person. There are however lazy stupid people who drag their feet in everything they do, despite this meaning they spend alot more time doing the thing they don't want to do.
...like students repeating the same course over and over because they won't do homework, they won't do projects, they won't read the book, they won't come to class and when they do they spend the whole time sleeping or checking their cellular if left unchecked?

Keep that thought.

In school, one of my classmates would truant to go surfing. Not every day, but when the surf was particularly outstanding he wouldn't turn up until the tide turned. Detention worked, and he kept the truancy down ... but it was really obvious that he didn't like school and did like surfing.

So he got the lecture every week. "No-one ever made money surfing. You'll end up in a dead-end job you hate unless you get better marks." Kid's name was Barton Lynch. Ha ha.
Yes... but how many people does that really work out for?

And how many people end up asking, "Ya want fries with that?"

To me, being lazy means you just wanna enjoy life to it's fullest, so I don't see anything wrong with being lazy. My question is, why does society have no respect for those who are lazy? And for those of you who don't respect lazy people, why don't they deserve your respect?
I'm naturally lazy. If it was up to me (i.e. I had infinite money and resources) I would live life on a tropical island being served pretty drinks, surfing and swimming occasionally but mostly doing nothing but sitting around being comfy and warm... maybe drawing and reading and playing music...

But I certainly don't respect these feelings. I respect myself when I'm not being a lazy bastard and I'm actually off doing something that is both interesting and useful in some small way. I also recognize that it will take a lot of hard work before I can securely live a life where I can do things I enjoy for significant amounts of time (like travel, sit on warm sunny beaches, read, draw...) without starving to death.

Buying a cat because cats don't need to be walked.

There are many other reasons to buy a cat. Also, some cats require a lot of attention (it depends on the personality of the cat).

such as getting a job that doesn't require strenous activity.
What kind of strenuous activity? My job doesn't involve strenuous physical activity, but it does require a lot of mental activity (even after 5 pm and often on weekends as well).

There are many other reasons to buy a cat. Also, some cats require a lot of attention (it depends on the personality of the cat).

What kind of strenuous activity? My job doesn't involve strenuous physical activity, but it does require a lot of mental activity (even after 5 pm and often on weekends as well).

yep, but you didn't buy a cat for that particular reason, nor did you get a job for that particular reason.

As someone who is lazy, I have no respect for lazy people, and they do not deserve respect above and beyond being lazy. Quit your whinin'.

Because society hates those that take time to enjoy things that aren't hard work. Like lying on the couch, or watching TV.

Which is exactly why televisions and couches never became popular consumer products in the Western world.

Wait a minute...