Needing an armored car or protection from neighbours is specifically to guard against proximity based exploits and those are very unlikely threats to most people. FTP interception can be easily performed from anywhere in the world with a little bit of DNS poisoning and then perform a MITM attack (or even just alter the data in transit from a malicious wifi hotspot).

It costs approximately zero to use encryption and protect against the FTP exploits, so why continue to use FTP? There's literally no advantage and several possible disadvantages. Just relying on not being hacked before seems a foolish stance to me.

If it's so easily done, then most FTP websites would be hacked every week. But hundreds of millions of people have FTP websites and never get hacked in decades.

I challenge you to select any FTP website of your choosing and make a tiny change to prove that you've hacked it and let me know here.

Do you drive a doorless car?

A frame-less one?

Yes, and it only has two wheels.

Don't complain when you get run over.

I don't even know if I'm talking about your servers or your bike at this point, ha

There's little reason to expect to be run over when you're on a bike, jut like there's little reason to expect your website to be hacked because you use FTP. If you're a normal person.

We have to be proportional when we do risk assessment. Just because it's part of modern programmer faith to be against FTP, doesn't mean it's sensible. Most hackers are just repeating what others have told them, and a lie becomes common sense.

If FTP is considered unsafe, then riding any non-armored vehicle should also be unacceptable.

It is, if your threat model includes texting general populace in large trucks.