Agreed, but you tried to make me sound like a pussy for understanding that tradeoff.
"Unless you're scared of a little moving fast and breaking things."
Sorry, I certainly don't mean you in particular!
It's a common pattern. When a software system becomes complicated and fragile, it's quite common for the developers to get scared of breakage and move slowly.
Sometimes there are fundamental reasons for moving cautiously, and sometimes they're accidental reasons that could be fixed with a better process (such as better tests). Either way, just being more reckless isn't going to help.
But as churn gets more expensive (and this is sometimes inevitable), you want to try harder to avoid it. A process is only agile while revisions are cheap.
It seems like a lot of arguments could be avoided if it were more widely understood that this is a trade-off, with agility on one end and stability on the other, and stability is often good. Particularly when a lot of people depend on you.