Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hubris incarnate, the seatbelt argument all over again.
Poor analogy, and typical of the deferred-update paranoia crowd, thinking the worst and feeling exposed because Microsoft says you are in "critical danger". A better analogy: You should keep your bicycle helmet on in the shower due to the slippery tiles and statistics of shower-related head injuries. Or this... Believe it or not, when you leave home without your umbrella, it may not rain. You know this, but you take…
If anything, the umbrella analogy wasn't great, because getting wet is a consequence of forgetting your umbrella, and that's far from as devastating as having your identity stolen. Further, you getting wet doesn't create a negative network effect like having your computer hacked does by adding your computer to a nefarious botnet.
This isn't Reddit, you can agree that the comparison was solid, but that the conclusion was still wrong. No need to go into Internet argument mode; we can have a discussion. For example, your helmet analogy in the bathtub is a decent one, except for the fact that it costs way more than running an update does to keep you safe.
Are you critically vulnerable all the time? No. Are you better equipped than Microsoft to judge which updates are important and which aren't? No. It's, as I said, the definition of hubris to think otherwise.
If you don't like how Windows does updates, don't use Windows -- lots of other great options.
Besides, the cost is absurdly low to keep yourself safe. If you're making the choice to run an un-updated Windows machine that's connected to the Internet, you are driving without a seatbelt, and not only are you literally risking your own livelihood, but you're also putting others at risk.