Talk:health nut

Sum of parts
You can be an anything nut, e.g. a "travel nut" or "computer nut". Equinox ◑ 10:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April–May 2024
SOP, +. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 19:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete (as I previously hinted on the talk page). Equinox ◑ 19:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I don't think the def is wrong. Some users are obsessed with deleting everything. DonnanZ (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The argument for deletion is not that the definition is wrong, but I think it could be improved. Would one call someone a health nut because they take their well-being seriously? As I understand the term, it implies an attitude that the utterer considers at least bordering the obsessive, and the sense of nut here is closer to nutcase. --Lambiam 08:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn’t that the case for any use of ‘nut’ in this sense? Compare ‘gun nut’ and the like. Seems like a property of ‘nut’ to me, not something idiomatic to this particular collocation. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on the definition currently given for this term: “ A person who is serious about or obsessed with their health and well-being”. This was triggered by the statement, “I don't think the def is wrong”. I do think this definition is perhaps not wrong, but also not good. It also has some bearing on the interpretation given by nominator: “ + ”. I am more inclined to interpret the term as +, but under either interpretation it is a sum of parts.  --Lambiam 19:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * W comment, Donnanz Purplebackpack89 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 09:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Donnanz, "big yellow dog outside my house" can also have a correct definition. You know by now that isn't the reason we don't include such things here. Equinox ◑ 10:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I DO wish you'd stop with the slippery-slope analogies... Purple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 02:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's the problem with showing that an argument is bad. PUC – 17:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A slippery-slope analogy is itself a bad argument. And an ineffective one too...instead of it bringing me around to Equinox's line of thinking, it's led me to believe that it's not such a bad idea to have those things if it means everything in the gray area of SOP is also retained. <b style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:#3A003A">Pur</b><b style="color:#800080">ple</b><b style="color:#991C99">back</b><b style="color:#C3C">pack</b><b style="color:#FB0">89</b></b> 14:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How is this a slippery-slope analogy? This is just him comparing two entries. It's not like he's saying "if we have 'health nut', then we will have 'big yellow dog outside my house'!". (Also, you want that entry?) CitationsFreak (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not a "slippery slope" analogy (which would be something like "if we do X today, we must do Y tomorrow"). It's simply stating the rule we have had for years, which a tiny few morons cannot understand. Those people should stay out of RFV and RFD. Equinox ◑ 04:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Failed Denazz (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)