I really like your counter argument, focusing on the process instead of the output. However I have to ask: isn't the end goal of submitting a manuscript to get recognition for it? Do you genuinely hope every time that your submission will be mercilessly torn apart and possibly rejected instead of getting the recognition for the work you've done?
Truly I have seen article reviews ruin a budding research scientist's career. Of course one could argue that other problems contribute to finding themselves in that position.
If there is something worth tearing apart, I would much rather it be torn apart than published. Recognition for my work is not what scientific articles are for, right? When I read a paper that has unaddressed problems, it's a waste of time - possibly years of my time if I base my own work on that weak foundation. I don't want to inflict that on anyone.
I would think that if peer review ruins a scientist's career, it would only be through a lack of support from the advisor. If the review is accurate the advisor should support the revisions, and if the review is totally mistaken the advisor should support resubmitting elsewhere.
Truly I have seen article reviews ruin a budding research scientist's career. Of course one could argue that other problems contribute to finding themselves in that position.