I'm not trying to horn in on Scott's rock'n'roll fallacy posts, (kudos and kleos for correct guesses for what song is in my head right now), but I think there's a sub-type of the ad misericordiam fallacy that we might name by the title of this post. I don't have an example in print right now, rather I've been running into this argument occasionally in conversation. It runs something like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
No really, it runs something like this:
A: "We think X is bad because it places significant burdens on us."
B: "That's nothing we have had much greater burdens placed on us."
B1: "Oh, Boo Effing Hoo, that's nothing compared to what we suffer."
So, there are some forms of this argument that might be reasonable, but when it is offered as a reason against rejecting X it seems to me to be fallacious, unless some sort of substantive premise, a "shared misery premise" is added. Something along the lines of:
B2: "It is your turn to share the burden that we have already endured."
But, as I've encountered it out in the irrational wildernesses of discourse, it seems often to be a nice variation on the ad miseridcordiam fallacy–a way of turning an assertion about burdens into a misery pissing contest.