He makes a few fair arguments in there.

This is true, and many other points raised are good. However, there is a existential level risk of establishing any precedent of freezing any kind of UTXOs. A much bigger risk than most people are able to understand. If the solutions to this problem all remain controversial, and many users do not support them, then what? Try to force the update, which would significantly aggravate the negative impact from this precedent?   This is why I am not necessarily trying to say that I don't want them to be frozen under any conditions. I am trying to say that if they do get compromised eventually, that it is not as bad as many parties try to make it seem and that we need to work on reframing this problem.

I believe in Lopp's argument that quantum "recovery" is a theft to all Bitcoin users is completely false. As I already wrote, these coins are part of the circulating supply.

We can wax philosophical until the cows come home, but what are the actual incentives for existing Bitcoin holders regarding this decision?

    "Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone." - Satoshi Nakamoto

If true, the corollary is:

    "Quantum recovered coins only make everyone else's coins worth less. Think of it as a theft from everyone." - Jameson Lopp