Rush Limbaugh is a well-known conservative radio talk show host. He focuses most of his air time to politics, but sometimes he discusses other things such as new found scientific research. The argument shown below is a transcript of a conversation Limbaugh had with a caller regarding meat eaters and vegans/ vegetarians. Limbaugh had previously spoken or joked about a scientific research done in the Netherlands which concluded that meat eaters were more selfish and less sociable compared to vegans/ vegetarians. Later it was found that the person that had conducted the research had falsified some data, and Limbaugh was quick to report it. I believe the research had intensions of getting people to eat healthier, and Limbaugh wanted to dispute it because the same scientist explained liberalism as a science.

Premise 1) the research was done by “that stupid Dutch scientist, that fraud that was trying to codify liberalism as science.”

2) Vegans are hard to talk to

3) Vegans don’t want to have fun

4) Vegans don’t seem healthy

5) Meat eaters are not bad people

6) Meat eaters are level headed

7) Ivy League girls are vegans

7) Clinton went vegan and he looks terrible

8) Vegetarians are militant eaters

9) All vegetarians are liberals

Conclusion: meat eaters are more approachable and overall better people compared to vegans/ vegetarians.

You can find the argument here

“…my wife and I always noticed that the vegans and the vegetarians, they got a whole list of unpleasant characteristics. They're a hard to talk to. They gotta think before they say everything. They never want to have any fun. They generally don't seem real healthy. They... I don't know. Meat eaters, on the other hand, I'm like you: I don't know any of 'em that have been bad people. They all seem levelheaded to me somehow.”

One of the fallacies that show up in the beginning of the argument is Ad Hominem abusive. It is a type of fallacy where the arguer is not providing evidence against the other person’s argument but instead attacks the person that made the argument. Limbaugh insults the scientist that conducted the research by calling him stupid and a fraud. He called him stupid because the same scientist did a study that tried to codify liberalism as a science. Limbaugh is attacking the man’s work not the point in hand. Another type of fallacy in this argument is red herring. It is a type of fallacy where the arguer distracts the audience from the argument and focuses on another topic. The caller talks about President Clinton going vegan and how he looks terrible. He chose to talk about Clinton specifically because Clinton is a Democrat and on this show disgracing Democrats and liberals makes you a hero. And, of course Limbaugh added to it by saying vegetarians are liberals. This premise is supposed to make the audience associate vegetarians with the “evil liberals” when in fact it has nothing to do with the point they are trying to make. The caller also associated vegans with Ivy Leaguers when he was talking which was also irrelevant. Being an Ivy Leaguer or a liberal does not make you a better person, and it does not make you worse either. The last fallacy I found in this argument, which is also the most common one, is hasty generalization. Hasty generalization is a type of fallacy where the arguer makes a quick conclusion about a group based on a small sample. Limbaugh as well as the caller make judgments about vegans and vegetarians based on a couple of people they have met over the years. The caller talks about the bad attitude and health of some vegans and vegetarians he has met and concluded that they are all like that. Limbaugh uses the word “all” when he talks about vegetarians being militant eaters and liberals.