I hear this (or a variation) a lot of times across a varied variety of conversations: "let us not do <x> and rather engage in constructive feedback". It generally arises in, but is not limited to, the kind of conversations where the core question relates to "why" in some form.

I do not agree with this.

I don't - because if you ask me for feedback, I understand that you love that thing and you might want to improve on it. You are entrusting me to find flaws along with the good parts. And I am just saying those things like they are. Being "nice" to people and sugar coating things is great, but what if I don't do that and give it to you straight? Were you not ready to hear it when you asked that question? Or does that mean that I am any less thoughtful or invested in the process? I think none of the above, it is just that people have become used to using this as an argument to close the conversations when they somewhere deep down agree with the problem but do not have a solution to it.

I also don't agree with this in cases where I am giving unsolicited feedback because clearly then I want a better outcome. I am trusting you as the creator / owner to be better at it than me since you did something and reached a stage that solicited a level of my attention on something, that I had to think about it and cared enough to let you know. Now where do you get your ideas from, how do you improve upon this, what could you do to make it better - is not my place to think, it is yours. Do your job please, or ask for help in clear words.

This borders on the edge of skepticism and cynicism. I agree that there could be more negatives outcomes of this kind of thought rather than positive, but I am yet to face such a situation personally. Most of the times, the conversation did not reach a conclusion because the other party felt "hurt".