[orf]

Was Rosa Parks unethical for sitting down on a bus?

The point is that the context matters: both the users context and the context of the restriction. It’s not as clear cut as “ignoring restrictions = bad”.

The restriction itself can be unethical, in the same way that bypassing a restriction can be unethical.

[Natfan]

we need a new version of Godwin's Law after this comment.

orf's law: > As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison with Rosa Parks approaches one."

[orf]

> 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.

[pocksuppet]

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.

[BoorishBears]

Woah now, I'm for headless browsers but let's not start comparing any of this to Rosa Parks lol.

The reality is a lot of interesting, trivially harmful to non harmful things are illegal and we still do them anyways.