Just stating the fact that when someone posts "C++ is horrible because of X", that X is either also available in "ANSI C", caused by compatibility with C semantics or compatibility with C toolchain.
How about this one: "C++ is horrible because of implicit copy constructors"? That one's not in C :-).
The newest additions to C++ for functional programming and automatic typing are quite intriguing. Blaming everything wrong with C++ on C is as disingenuous as labeling everything about C++ as wrong because one thing about it is wrong.
C doesn't implicitly convert one struct into another. Why implicitly convert one class into another just because I created a constructor in one class that takes the other class as a parameter? The "explicit" keyword should have been "implicit", with the default behavior reversed.
Which incidentally also affect Objective-C for the same reasons.