I fully agree with this - which is why the ultimate answer is to use the appropriate level of automation for the situation (which in turn requires the crew to have a good level of situational awareness). I've been presuming this discussion is revolving around normal operations with relatively few distractions - an assumption on my part for the discussion, but I believe a valid one.

Now, if we alter that dynamic and add circumstances conducive to distractions - a sick or disruptive passenger, a systems abnormal, protracted communications with the company or ATC for whatever reason, etc., then this may well alter the appropriate level. VS or pitch may give a smoother climb under normal circumstances, but if the situation warrants it may well be time to select FLCH, VNAV, or whatever mode may be more "hands off" even if it provides an inferior ride.

Likewise, I see people try and use VNAV on an approach when they're behind the aircraft or the aircraft is too far along the profile for VNAV to work effectively - it's time to either revert to a lower level which provides more immediate control of your flightpath, or possibly scrap the approach and start over depending on how far gone things are.

You are absolutely correct that given the right combination of circumstances virtually any crew can make a serious error. I'm really harping against a one-dimensional thought process that simply says:
"VS BAD!!! NEVER USE VS!!! VS HURT PILOT!!!"
We _SHOULD_ (note the emphasis) as professional pilots be beyond the caveman stage of flying. On the other hand, we shouldn't have had at least three hull losses in the past three or so years due to botched stall handling - so perhaps I'm giving us too much credit.