A parade of horribles is also a
rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action. Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions; however, a parade of horribles can potentially be a
fallacy if one or more of the following is true: • The action doesn't actually change the likelihood of the "horribles" occurring. The "horribles" could be unlikely to occur even if the action is taken, or they could be likely to happen anyway even if the action is avoided. This is an
appeal to probability, and can be viewed as a
non sequitur insofar as the action has no causal relation to the "horribles". • The argument relies solely on the emotional impact of the "horribles" (an
appeal to emotion). • The "horribles" are not actually bad. • The "horribles" have a low probability of occurring when compared to the high probability of good occurring. A parade of horribles may be a type of
hyperbole if it exaggerates the negative results of the action.
Examples • In ,
Chief Justice John Roberts held that the
Affordable Care Act lacked justification under the
Commerce Clause, noting that, if Congress could force people to purchase health insurance to prevent them from burdening the health care system in the future, then Congress could also force people to buy vegetables because eating meat is less healthy and could cause people to likewise burden the health care system.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded by criticizing Chief Justice Roberts' argument as the "broccoli horrible". ==See also==