> Don't you think this is quite political?

We’re discussing politics.

> Like what is your benefit from saying this out of context?

What does that even mean? Are you insinuating they’re being paid to say that? How do we know you’re not paid to counter them?

> If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing?

The problem is you and no one else could prove now or then that giving up my human rights would save lives. Because its all pointless lip service to take power away from the people under the guise of “protection”. Just like with encryption, personal weapons, and everything else that governments don’t want us to have.

> I'm just saying you don't seem to take that possibility into account at all

And I’m saying you haven’t taken into account that you’re an Authoritarian apologist.

>> If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing?

If banning encryption and helping police stop terrorism saved x thousand lives do you blah blah blah blah

Do programmers hang out here? The aversion to reasoning from first principle is palpable.

> If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing?

If patriot act helped US intelligence agencies prevent the next 9/11, do you still think it was a bad thing?

It certainly is political in some ways. Some people think that government shouldn't have such authority to lock people down in their homes for months on end, to spend public money on buying overpriced masks and preventive treatment that doesn't work, shouldn't pay the media to spread misinformation and definitely shouldn't have access into our lives like we're in some dystopian novel from the last century. But hey, maybe that's not most people anyway...