> Actually it's 3 examples, which I think is enough to show a bias towards one of two sides (c'mon, nobody chooses one side out of two 3 times in a row accidentally, and if he chose a side with equal probability for each example - yeah right - the result we got is a 1 in 8 event, so not a great support for that hypothesis),
That is a straw man argument, as you can see nowhere I claim that he chose his examples randomly. Quite the opposite as you quote directly, I think he chose his example to speak to his target audience.
> again, come on, his target audience will be familiar with their fellow extremists' arguments just as much as it will be familiar with the other side's extremists.
Perhaps, but this is a writing style issue. Anyway sure, it's a valid point you could ask of the writer to always perfectly balance his examples between minority and majority viewpoints of his readership. I don't think the "come on" is warranted though, do you really feel it's that obvious that the author should consider this instead of considering for example the sting the nice black/white examples that he uses give?
As to what you think of your comment, I didn't ask what you thought about your comment. I asked whether you realized your argument was exaggerated. I didn't downvote your reply nor do I think a moderator should remove it. I was just curious as to why you would be artificially polarizing this discussion.