That's a very uncharitable (and in my judgement inaccurate) characterization of GP's argument - the usage of the MaB fallacy as you've done neglects the princip

That's a very uncharitable (and in my judgement inaccurate) characterization of GP's argument - the usage of the MaB fallacy as you've done neglects the principle of steelmanning your opponent's position, and shifts the discussion from a fact-finding mission to "winning an argument", both things that are anathema to good discourse. The article you linked expands on this criticism of the MaB fallacy in the 'Criticism' section. GP took advantage of an analogy to counter the claim that ethics is only about shaming and calling people out. Analogical reasoning is a powerful philosophical tool that can lead to important insights and discovering new questions. In this case, GP used the analogy where we apply ethics (relatively uncontroversial) in a scientific context. If the comparison is successful, it counters the claim that ethics is only a fashionable way of shaming people. Lastly, GP never claimed to 'win' the argument with the analogy (even if it were a motte-and-bailey). It's entirely possible that GP has more work to do after getting a response to the analogy.