Should "too scary" be an acceptable reason for an R rating?

[KManX89]

As we all know, The Conjuring infamously received an R rating from the MPA "simply" for being too scary. According to producer Walter Hamada, the MPA told them it was too scary and there was nothing they could cut to get a lower certificate. This, of course, was met with its share of criticism on the interwebs (facetiously misspelled), and so I ask you:

should horror movies devoid of excessive (or any) gore, profanity, nudity, nonetheless still be given an R rating simply for being too scary/intense?

I'd say yes. Dead Silence was another film (ironically also directed by James Wan) that featured no gore (all deaths were offscreen), nudity or F-bombs and was given an R for being too scary, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I don't care if there is no gore, boobs, or F-bombs, if you'd seriously show/allow this to be seen by a 12-year-old, I'd say it's bad parenting. I was messed up from watching it and I was 19 at the time, and I watch gory movies of just about every size, shape and color (except exploitation films, that's where I draw the line), then and now! Also, Reddit posts like these show that even some horror movies devoid of blood and guts can be traumatic for kids. Even adults reported having unrest from The Conjuring.

The original TCM didn't have those things, either, and it absolutely earns its R rating. And this was despite Tobe Hooper's best efforts to earn a PG from the get-go (just like Wan did The Conjuring, go figure).