I think he's referring to the strong recommendation for RAIDz2.
Since the context is that he
was considering a RAIDZ arrangement, but now is looking at mirrors, I'd disagree with your interpretation. I've seen a number of articles and blog posts recommending mirrors over RAIDZ
n arrangements citing similar concerns: "when you resilver RAIDZ
n pools, you're putting so much wear and tear on all the disks in the pool!" Well, yeah, exactly as much wear and tear as you'd add by doing a scrub. That argument is FUD. There are other valid arguments favoring mirrors in certain situations, but that isn't one of them.
But the promotion of RAIDZ2 over RAIDZ1 often reaches FUD-like levels, too, when people say things like "resilvering a RAIDZ1 pool with > 1 TB disks will probably result in pool failure." No, no it won't (of course it
can, but the probability is nowhere near 50%, and certainly not over 50%, so "probably" is false--and I've seen it stated even more strongly than "probably"). Yes, I'm (roughly) familiar with the math in question, but (1) that doesn't account for the fact that a single read error in ZFS will not result in catastrophic failure; and (2) a great many RAIDZ1 pools have, in fact, been successfully resilvered. Yes, RAIDZ2 is a better arrangement, and it's a rare case indeed where I'd think that RAIDZ1 would be a good recommendation--but the odds are still good that you'd be able to safely and successfully resilver a 3 x 2 TB RAIDZ1 pool.
Edit: I'll add that many of the pro-ECC arguments, especially the ones about the "scrub of death", also border on FUD.