You are confirming the very point that technology is compensating for pilot skills and luring pilots into situations where they would not be comfortable without that technology.
No, not really. I'm saying that the Mooney is much harder work, and for a fairly inexperienced instrument pilot like me it makes sense not to plan to fly approaches down to 200ft in it. Slowing down to the very restrictive gear and flap speeds is hard work (and nobody's going to thank me for flying the whole approach at 80kt), there's no autopilot, no electric trim, and there are big trim changes when you add power for a missed approach. Add to that the (manual) retractable gear, cowl flaps and prop rpm control and the workload on a missed approach is much higher than a Cirrus - which has a good digital autopilot, easier speed control and much better avionics.
So while I'm sure I could fly an approach to minimums in the Mooney, it's something I would only do if I really had to. I'd be more likely to plan a flight to somewhere with better weather or to stay on the ground. In a Cirrus I've done it quite often - and while it's a serious business which needs a lot of concentration, it's much easier than the Mooney.
On the broader topic, I don't agree that pilots shouldn't use new technology to do things that they wouldn't be comfortable or competent to try with old technology. The world has moved on. Most new aircraft come with glass cockpits, WAAS GPS and digital autopilots which let suitably trained pilots get great utility out of GA aircraft. The GA industry needs a critical mass of pilots if it is remain economically viable. If we limit access to those who are good enough to fly NDB approaches on a partial panel of steam gauges, or other things which are similarly irrelevant to flying a modern GA aircraft, people won't do it; a large part of the industry will die, and the airports that serve it will close.