EULAs are contracts, not laws. An important distinction, because contracts only bind parties. We don't need to decide whose laws we do and do not respect; what a user and another party have agreed to, is of no concern to us, and it shouldn't be. What business does Superuser have enforcing a contract it cannot know exists, cannot know the terms of and is not a party to?

I agree the answerer may have gambled whether his submission would be useful to the OP, but the reasoning also seems somewhat circular: the answerer takes a risk because the question may be specified, and because the answerer knowingly takes this risk, it's okay edit the question. After all, if the question had not been edited, then the answer would not have been wrong or irrelevant. Instead, it could have been helpful to future visitors. Shouldn't we be awarding useful answers, even though they did not help one person in particular?

As the one who submitted the answer, it had crossed my mind that the community might disapprove of posting images as a joke, but I thought it had enough relevance to the question to be acceptable. Not for an instance would I have thought someone would take offence to the language used in this particular comic, but if you found it disturbing, please accept my apologies.