This is not directly to your point, but I was thinking about this argument while reading John Murray's Christian Baptism the other day. At one point, Murray is discussing how the disciples thought small children unimportant and that they had nothing to do with the kingdom, but Jesus told the disciples to let the little children come to him because the kingdom belongs to them.
It struck me that this argument is entirely contradictory to the argument from silence, which Murray also makes; if it would have been obvious to first century Jews that children should be in the covenant, and if what Jesus says about the kingdom here has to do with being in the covenant, why on earth would the Jewish disciples be so opposed to the little children coming to Christ? It seems that both the argument from silence and the argument about the little children coming to Jesus cannot be correct. Either the situation with the children is dealing with a different issue, or 1st century Jews weren't all making the assumption paedobaptists claim.
In my opinion, there is something to consider on the topic you note relative to the question of baptism, but in one of those ancillary ways where the conclusion makes some corroborative impact. On the business of "argument from silence," I think the contradiction you detect arises from the ease with which our minds fill in the gaps, regardless of our perspective.
Mk.10:13-16 (along with Lk.18:15-17) gives us a scene of Jesus rebuking his disciples for restricting little children's access to him. He famously declares that the kingdom he brings is "of such." Mark ch.9 contains the Transfiguration atop the high mountain, and the begining of the Savior's descent into hell that ends at the cross. Ch.10 takes place on Jesus' way to his final confrontation in Jerusalem. By the end of the ch, he is on his way out of Jericho on his last leg of the journey.
In the course of the trip, Jesus several times predicts his death, but the disciples are incapable of grasping his meaning. They are blinded by their own visions of the kingdom, and their part in it, and to be honest their weak faith (Mk.9:18-19). They know this trip is momentous for the ministry of Christ, but their expectations are clouded, and nearly all of them are given to pride, see Mk.10:35-45. This hardness of heart (v5) is not unique to the disciples, but to their nation and humanity as a whole. It is sin that makes the disciples opposed to the fathers who brought their children, not the working out of their OT (or NT) theological ideas.
Mk.10:1-16 combined actually presents us with the reality of Jesus declaring that the building block composition of his kingdom is husbands, wives, and children. These, and not the "top dogs," are the essence of the kingdom--a lesson that the disciples absorb only with much difficulty. They are only too happy to have someone like the Rich Young Ruler offer to hitch his money and influence onto Jesus' kingdom movement, but are astonished when Jesus rebuffs him, v24. Vv29-30 gives further confirmation that the kingdom administration, continuing for a while in this world, still has place in it for the blessing of family.
None of the particulars noted make the case for infant baptism; I do not claim that the continuity Jesus alludes to
means that our children now should receive the covenant sign of this age, the way the sons of the covenant received the covenant sign of prior ages. But Jesus is teaching continuity of some kind, and so one must layer his understanding of the kingdom from many passages to obtain the clearest picture of that continuity, and any discontinuity that accompanies it.