> As a discussion regarding if it’s ethical to ignore restrictions progresses, the probability of someone bringing up a famous case where someone ignored unethical restrictions approaches one

Seems reasonable to me. Substitute Rosa parks with another example of unethical restrictions if you wish - there are many.

Do you think it is a problem that someone said it's always unethical to violate a restrictions, and someone else brought up Rosa Parks?

I propose a new law myself: as an online discussion gets longer, the probability of someone trying to defeat an argument by stating that it mentioned Rosa Parks or Hitler without engaging with the substance of that argument approaches one.