It’s a pointless form of argument.
“This scientist made a careless error in their paper, therefore we need to excuse a con artist who falsified an entire career.”
Or, “that restaurant served fish that got someone sick, therefore, there’s no reason for there to be a health inspection at my restaurant or any other one for that matter.”
Or, “there was a typo in this book from a major publisher, so I’m not going to bother with an editor at all.”
The open-minded respond by trying to defend the original error or the intent behind it. But that simply amplifies the false equivalency argument and leads to a no-standards race to the bottom.
The false equivalency itself is the problem, not the unexpected error.
Perfect is a trap.