The article makes two main points: a) static typing has a cost and b) thus, any benefit it brings should be examined against that cost.

I am sorry, but I don't really see how you stating more benefits of static typing really counters either of them.

I recommend reading the article again. But this time, try not to read it as defending a specific language (I only mentioned my blub language so that it's a more specific and extensive reference in the cases where I use it - if you are not using my blub language, you should really just ignore everything I write about it specifically) and more as trying to talk on a meta-level about how we discuss these things. Because your comment is an excellent example of how not to do it and the kind of argument that prompted me to this writeup in the first place.