The biggest problem with this question is that it is truly subjective and argumentative. Some subjectivity is OK, but this question reeks of one designed to spark controversy and extended discussion.
From the FAQ:
Avoid asking questions that are
subjective, argumentative, or require
extended discussion. This is not a
discussion board, this is a place for
questions that can be answered!
There have always been some subjective questions around; subjectivity is not the issue. It's the argumentative stance that this question takes:
Are frameworks too vulnerable to exploits? ...
Do the benefits of frameworks outweigh the fact that they basically make your website an open book? ...
Maybe frameworks aren't all they're cracked up to be and they were instead simply a push in order to get more web developers to use best practices and design patterns?
Is there anything shown above which isn't argumentative?
Three of the five reopen votes were folks at the lower end of the close/reopen vote rep spectrum, and one was the OP (who just barely has enough to do so on his own questions). This implies to me some misunderstanding as to why there were five votes to close (all but one from 7,000+ users) in the first place. Interestingly, one of the people who voted to close initially also voted to reopen -- I guess he figured that if it was CW, it was OK.
Ultimately: SO is not a discussion board. SO is not a social network. SO is a Q&A board, with an emphasis on the A -- and there is no true A to this question.