• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How do you measure laziness?

Can you actually measure laziness?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 8 36.4%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Total voters
    22
MarineTpartier said:
A perfect example is the guy I saw sitting on the curb with a sign that said "No work, need money, food" with a "Now Taking Applications" sign right behind him on the local Waffle House. Last time I checked, the Waffle House will hire anyone that can breath and blink at the same time. Some Americans need to take their nose out of the air and work wherever they can. I distinctly remember my father working 2 jobs. One delivering milk, the other as custodian for Servicemaster. He had no pride when it came to providing for my mom, brother, and me. Whatever put food on the table was done.
Click to expand...

Its people like that who make it too damn hard for me to conjure up compassion for the poor. I'd much rather just increase our aggregate demand for employment, and let them take the jobs themselves.
 
0bserver92 said:
That's almost the entire physics point behind the equation but oh well.
Click to expand...

We can even break down force into mass * acceleration, to further explain that laziness= distance *(taking on too little of a task (mass), and taking too much time to complete said task (acceleration)).
 
ReformCollege said:
The problem with society isn't that people are lazy... its that they are so damn stupid.
Click to expand...

I'd say that the choice of being lazy in many cases is stupid. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people fuss about something they are capable of solving.

To answer the OP, there are multiple ways you could measure laziness. The simplest way is to consider how much more work could have potentially been done to avoid meeting the standards set. If the answer is "zero" then that implies another issue was the source of the failure. Otherwise, the extra actions listed which were willingly omitted and knowingly beneficial can each go under the laziness column and weighted by the effort they require.
 
Mathematician said:
I'd say that the choice of being lazy in many cases is stupid. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people fuss about something they are capable of solving.

To answer the OP, there are multiple ways you could measure laziness. The simplest way is to consider how much more work could have potentially been done to avoid meeting the standards set. If the answer is "zero" then that implies another issue was the source of the failure. Otherwise, the extra actions listed which were willingly omitted and knowingly beneficial can each go under the laziness column and weighted by the effort they require.
Click to expand...

I don't think laziness is something we should try measure. Laziness is just implied by a lack of results.
 
ReformCollege said:
I don't think laziness is something we should try measure. Laziness is just implied by a lack of results.
Click to expand...

It's not implied purely by lack of results. The kid struggling to learn math may have a learning disability rather than lack of effort.

Let's consider a task where efforts are obviously comparable. Suppose the family gets home from grocery shopping and needs to get six bags from the car to the house. Since fully loaded, the most anyone can carry is 2 at a time. Adam grabs two bags, Bob just takes one and Charles doesn't carry any. Bob and Charles are clearly the two we'd call lazy, because they could have helped complete the task all in one trip. Furthermore, using what I described in my last post of taking what more could have been done to succeed, we can order
Alex < Bob < Charles (0 < 1 < 2)
with respect to their laziness in this event.
 
Mathematician said:
It's not implied purely by lack of results. The kid struggling to learn math may have a learning disability rather than lack of effort.

Let's consider a task where efforts are obviously comparable. Suppose the family gets home from grocery shopping and needs to get six bags from the car to the house. Since fully loaded, the most anyone can carry is 2 at a time. Adam grabs two bags, Bob just takes one and Charles doesn't carry any. Bob and Charles are clearly the two we'd call lazy, because they could have helped complete the task all in one trip. Furthermore, using what I described in my last post of taking what more could have been done to succeed, we can order
Alex < Bob < Charles (0 < 1 < 2)
with respect to their laziness in this event.
Click to expand...

Learning disabilities are the vast exception, not the norm. But it gets to the point where we start saying "I'm not very good at math so obviously I have a learning disability" rather than " I have a learning disability, and therefore have a hard time with math."

I think it is implied by results. Laziness=potential - results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom