I think you answered your own implied question.
Not to rub it in, but the appeal to consequences is such an obvious fallacy that one wonders how a person who has pretenses to philosophy would even consider using it.
Also the fallacy of composition. Nobody contests that a pound of iron and a pound or air are both made up of almost the same number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and controlled by precisely the same forces. Still, the effects of a pound of air and a pound of iron travelling at 50 m.p.h. towards one's head are quite different. People who advance the fallacy of composition maybe need to explore the difference in a more convincing way.