or that an experienced person can navigate just fine without one.    
Yeah I know, but that's sort of like saying that if you know ways to navigate without a compass, then you shouldn't bring one.  There are situations when a compass can be more useful than your eyes, and also when a GPS can be more useful than a compass.    
  
  
I think your argument is based on one or two inherently irrational (although very romantically appealing) philosophies: a) to bring as little as possible for reasons other than logistical ones (weight, space, organization, etc.), or b) to pride oneself on needing as little as possible.  Of course we all know that irrational romanticism can result in a more fulfilling recreational experience, so on that basis, I'm totally with you.  
  
I do love the soft, young, hairless ones.   
  
No, it's not like saying that at all.  See, the way it works here is this:  you put forth your opinions, and the rest of us put forth ours.  The rest of us don't need your help formulating our opinions there, partner.    
  
A compass weighs less than an ounce, and, not being battery or satellite dependent, reliability is 100%.  It also costs about $10.  Combined with an altimeter, these two small devices fulfill nearly all the navigational functions of a GPS, without the cost/bulk, and reliability problems of that system.  GPS work poorly the forest, the situation when navigation is often most crucial.    Furthermore, many people who use GPS rely solely on that technology (this is from observation); they do not parallel their efforts with compass/altimeter: if the GPS fails, they're navigation goes out the window. 
  
I'm not knocking GPS, it has its uses.  They're great in white outs on big peaks, for sure.  But as a "no excuse not to carry one" item?  A little hint for a youngster:  Many of us have gone wherever we wanted to go in all kinds of conditions without one for decades now.  Call that romanticism if you like; we just call it results.