The “discipline” in this case (see the whole thread) is “have programmers remember to insert checks”, which has historically been a good way to have security holes crop up. So I’m not sure what was dishonest about it?
You took the original argument, changed it to be fallacious, and used it as a strawman. That's what was dishonest about it.
Honestly, unless you really cannot afford it time-budget wise, I would just ship everything with ASAN, UBSAN, etc. and deal with the crash reports.
Left unsaid due to the fact I was out doing groceries this morning when I posted that was that I don't think this is even a very good practice in general, as I explained in more detail in other comments here.