I don't think that's a correct summary, certainly not in the context of this discussion. You might be confusing frequentist probability with classical probability.

Fixed.

This is a variation on the argument I've heard. I can assure you it's Bayesian. I looked at the Bayesian one linked to in your link. I didn't see anything about justifying the prior, but I might have missed it. How do they make an explanation for such a simple argument so long?

I doubt I can focus long enough to understand what he's saying in that, also very long, rebuttal. If you understand it, can you tell me where you think the error is? At the very least, please narrow it down to one of these four:

1. My prior is unreasonable
2. My evidence is faulty
3. I'm underestimating the importance of other evidence
4. Something else I haven't thought of