Jump to content

Talk:Laziness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tiny plastic Grey Knight (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 1 August 2008 (reorganised philosophy portion a bit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Maybe something poetic like "Laziness is the strongest emotional feeling human being can experience..." ?

REPLY: Except that many would disagree. :) Laziness is not an emotion, but it does CAUSE emotions -- mainly the emotions of depression and guilt. (That's what researchers into happiness have found.) I do know what you mean though -- the writing could be improved. I'm working on it. I visit this page every day. Wikidudeguy 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Wikidudeguy[reply]

Laziness is a major term, so I was surprised to see that this article is still a stub. I thought I would extend it and improve it a bit, but then I realized I couldn't possibly bother. Haakon 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have expanded this article, but I can't be arsed. 86.56.48.12 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you get a chance, could you take a look at procrastination? -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, isn't it? We all know this is an important article, but we're too lazy to make it half decent. I'll add that laziness is often connected with procrastination and a generally unconcerned paradigm.142.179.73.102 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder this article is a stub

'cause everyone is just way too lazy to write about laziness :) Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.186.19 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you. :P I came in here to write the exact same thing.Martian Kyo (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

attempt at definition

Laziness is the tendency ...

  • 1) to prefer smaller immediate rewards to a potentially greater, future ones.
  • 2) to seek the satisfaction of "lowly" animal desires instead of morally superior (usually cultural) ones.

DUDE there is much more on the subject of laziness, but whoever wrote the main page was too lazy to finish it. hardy har har.

to do something in a lazy, laid back manner, but does not indicate the person is being lazy - 'I was mooching around town whilst trying to come up with ideas for my new book', for instance

mooch can also mean a person who feeds off the resources of another without contributing for example "that mooch always eats the pizza but never pays for any"


Webster's Third New International Dictionary describes lazy as disliking physical or mental exertion, and not energetic or vigorous; moving slowly and without or as if without energy; not easily aroused to responsible, purposeful activity; an aversion to work and a habitual tendency to idleness. The word describes my natural energy-level; yet has been used all of my life as if it were wrong. Such dislike of me I consider threatening. Welfare to Work and other policies that try to get everyone to keep up with the hyperactive and the larger-than-life are a major injustice and the #1 cause of homelessness, and an article on laziness ought to point that out. -- Chuck Marean 07:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck, this is what we call original research. You are taking a verifiable fact (Webster's dictionary definition) and drawing your own conclusion from it. That is not the conclusion that the vast majority of people would draw; Welfare to Work is nothing to do with laziness and your conclusion about homelessness is obviously wrong: homelessness predates the Welfare to Work act by at least thousands of years. You cannot add your own personal interpretations of facts to articles. Gwernol 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Welfare to Work ( a U.S. welfare program that requires people to work for their welfare checks) is an expression of uninformed prejudice against the lazy, an attempt to force weak people to work harder than they can. I also think if someone finds something published that agrees with compassion toward the lazy it should be included in an article on laziness. What the vast majority thinks is not always as important as the truth. -- Chuck Marean 07:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck you need to distinguish between an inability to do work, for example because of disability, and people who are capable of work but decide not to. The latter category is generally regarded as "lazy". Welfare to Work, along with other similar programs, generally recognizes medical conditions as a reason not to require people to work. Your assertion that Welfare to Work is "uninformed prejudice against the lazy" is simply your opinion and should not be added to the article. Gwernol 16:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom and showing proper respect are more reasons not to require people to work. -- Chuck Marean 08:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - the freedom to earn money without having it stolen and given to the lazy. Good point, Chuck. 72.144.198.53 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Overcoming Laziness" blog seems to think laziness is procrastination by people at work 65.214.186.214 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there laziness?

I question whether or not there is laziness, since it's really a word invented to be an insult. Therefore, I'm changing 'generally considered a negative quality' to 'probably considered by the hyperactive to exist.' -- Chuck Marean 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, there is laziness. I reverted your change becuase "generally considered..." is a much more accurate description of what laziness is commonly considered. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, simply stating "Yes, there is laziness" is not proof to the contrary. This is merely my own thought, wikipedia should not reflect a single users opinion however. Resaebiunne 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am more in agreement with Chuck. What has been historically and popularly called "laziness" is most likely a form of mental illness, which would indeed be a form of human weakness, or disability. As a society, we don't question the morality of a person who is confined to a wheelchair, yet, we persist in condemning those who are too "lazy" (irrational; insane; mentally-handicapped) to even get a job to avoid going to jail (such as is the case for those on probation, not paying child support, etc.). Do we condemn people for jumping off buildings because they are so troubled they really think they can fly, because suicide is still the result, and all that ultimately matters are the consequences of our actions, the end results? I'm going to sign this now because what I typed before (perhaps on the "Workaholism:Talk" page) was thoroughly obliterated (deleted) and I can't even find it on the "History" section.Shanoman 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think laziness does not exist as it's own problem, but that it is simply a symptom of other problems. Problems such as fear, anxiety, etc. --SRG805 10:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Moxham

I have never heard of anything laziness-related named 'Dean Moxham' and am removing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.202.169 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Laziness in the Bible

81.145.242.139 (talk · contribs) just removed the bible section, and i restored it because i think it's valuable and relevant. If anyone else thinks it should go, please let me know what you see as wrong with the section, and i'll do my best to fix it. Foobaz·o< 02:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is irrelevant to everyday life, as it is not a scientific document. As of yet, there is hardly information associated with the Bible other than a mild declaration that the Bible has few lines against laziness. Unless you have particular anecdotes therefrom which are a worthwhile read, then the Bible section should be removed. EDIT-- Line removed. The intro sums up the Christian stance against laziness already. I hardly see the need to waste time with a section devoted to three sentences. --70.136.192.141 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the section is valuable, especially for those who don't know much about the Bible. However, since two people have now removed it, i won't attempt to go against popular opinion by putting it back. And if you think only scientific documents have relevance to your life, what do you believe about philosophy, ethics, art, and religion? Do you believe science is complete, a finished system describing everything? It's very much a work in progress. Foobaz·o< 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Bible is an historical document, and arguably a sociological one as well. It's a decent enough source, if the intent is to show how a particular culture or group of cultures has viewed laziness. In any case, I fail to see where its lack of merit as a scientific document has any relevance to this article. Last I checked, such sources as the New York Times were not scientific documents, either. -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it belongs. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I readded this as part of a larger "In Philosophies and Religions" section, merging the lead's comment on Christianity there (diff). I believe this addresses the objections apart from User:70.136.192.141's personal opinions about the Bible. Please add other notable philosophical stances, within the normal standards. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia style

"An example of laziness would be a perfectly healthy person living at home with ones parents until the age of thirty years without the desire to get a job or find a career in ones life being in all ways dependent on ones parents for support." This seems to be written as an attack on a particular person, and at least contributes nothing to the article. Removed until anyone sees fit to add it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.192.141 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Note

Does anyone else find it nearly as humorous as I that the article is very short? In fact, the discussion dwarfs it considerably... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.187.58 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Christian the only philosophy represented in this "definition"? The cultural opinions of everyone else are ignored. The definition is too simple. What's with the creepy personal discussion in attempt a definition? Something went wrong here when Dean Moxham couldn't be knocked off. I think its funny, but since most people aren't on the inside of that joke, it should be removed. $$$/132.198.240.170 04:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good research proposal: Is laziness considered negative behaviour in other religions? Go for it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to structure the "philosophy/religion" content so as to make this easier. A philosophy that promotes laziness as very desirable behaviour would be an especially interesting addition, if anyone knows of any. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this artical should link to recluse. Just because someone is reclusive doesn't make them lazy. I don't see the connection. Could someone explain this to me? I'm going to remove the Recluse link for now.

Sontag12 —Preceding comment was added at 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laziness&oldid=229222237"