I guess I could call it “The Worst-Case Scenario is what is currently the case” fallacy:
“Oh, that Politician X’s idea was the worst ever! I mean just look at what happened (to unemployment, or the environment, the GNP, etc.) after he signed that bill Z into law!”
“You haven’t established that any other alternatives (including doing nothing) would have been better.”
Because we have no access to the alternate reality where some other bill (or no bill at all) was what was passed, we thus have no point of comparison that would allow us to demonstrate that the law has lead us to a very undesireable (or the absolute worst) state of affairs. Or would the fallacy devolve into begging the question or some other more general fallacy?
At first blush I would say this is fallacy of cause and effect. That one action follows another does not mean that the earlier action caused the later action.
This is a quite popular game in politics. The same fallacy applied in reverse is most often known as “the rooster taking credit for the sun rising” situation where a politician will take some action, then if things go well he will take credit that his action increased jobs/improved the economy/won the war/brought down the Soviet Union, whatever.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: Argument from Ignorance
You can’t prove a negative. The inability of the UN inspectors to find WMD in Iraq only goes to show they may be there.
It’s not actually a formal logical argument… but what the hell… it’s morning and I can’t sleep.
The first part is missing at least one term… and the “worst ever” isn’t defined in any meaningless way (Illicit process?)
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy; “after he signed that bill” The causation isn’t addressed. Correlation does not imply causation.
Let’s reword it.
Oh, this thread is the worst ever! I mean just look at how I run out of cigarettes after you posted your question!
is running out of cigarettes the worst possible outcome?
did your posting cause it to happen?
Neither is based on anything at all.
And the rest is an argument from ignorance.
You haven’t proven that not posting would have meant I wouldnt’ve run out… and neither should you, as you’re not the one making the claim.
That aside, in order to commit a fallacy, you should be trying to make a formal argument… normal discourse doesn’t really have strict rules. The best reply is always “prove it”… proofs you can dissect, normal speech… not so much (without descending into the realm of higher-order logic…and you really really don’t want to go there).