It is not because an action does not get condemned before court that it is a correct action, let alone a wise one.
I agree. There are times when we might contemplate operating an aircraft in an uncommon way. In those situations, have we made the extra, situation appropriate preparations? Could we present ourselves in front of our peers, after an unexpected negative outcome, and say that we did our best to mitigate a poor outcome?
I once landed my wheel plane on a frozen lake, whose Ice I knew to be more than two feet think. The was no doubt that the Ice would support he aircraft with ample excess. I broke through a thin layer, into a hidden pocket of water on the thick ice. The plane did not "break through" the ice, but was stuck none the less. Though I had some gear (ice screws, ropes, axe), I required help to get the plane out. When my peers arrived, they surveyed the scene, and said, "yup, I would have chosen exactly the spot to land that you did!". We got it out, and I flew it home wiser, and happy I'd carried with me most of what I'd need to get out.
For those pilot who choose to operate an aircraft on and off, or very low over the water, the "out you should be leaving yourself is at a minimum a life jacket/immersion suit (depending upon water temperature), and completion of an underwater egress course. Anything less is irresponsible. It is necessary to operate aircraft such that you may end up submerged. 'Darn good chance it will include inverted, and it will happen quickly. Your "out" and pride in the face of your peers, is being properly equipped, and trained.