First, let's dispose of the hypotheticality aspect. The response to Charlie Brumbaugh's Meta question about hypothetical questions was that there is nothing wrong with hypothetical questions, per se.
The glacier question showed TGO at its best. The question, which first asserted, in boldface, that the glacier was unavoidable was clarified under probing by several users as an unavoidable feature on a discretionary recreational hike. Experts on glacier travel then weighed in and agreed that the hike proposed by the OP was too dangerous for a young child. A similar response happened with an earlier question. (At what age (and strength and skill level) these expeditions would have been OK was not addressed.)
Small Digression: The OP is a father proud of his strong, intelligent, skillful daughter and wants to see her become outstanding in the outdoors. I applaud that. (With a father that believes in her and physical confidence from meeting outdoor challenges, she may be better prepared to deal with loathsome creatures that crawl out from under rocks indoors.)
In contrast, I don't think we handled the impalement question as well as we could have. Again, the hypothetical nature is not the problem. A lot of issues were raised in comments, and a user raised a medical red flag, which we ignored. On glacier travel, we listened to our experts; on the impalement question, we did not have that level of expertise. I contributed to the problem: I edited a question on a subject I knew nothing about.
What, if anything, to do? What lesson to take from these questions?