Also, I'm not the one with communication difficulties here. I'm trying to explain how the so-called question that you are telling me to address instead can't even be addressed because it makes no sense and it's based on a premise that contradicts itself because it implies the law of identity when it explictly says it doesn't, and yet you tell me you agree with me.
The only way I'm having a communication difficulty is being unable to explain in simple enough terms why we DON'T agree and why the OP's question can't be answered because it's nonsense. If we agreed you'd agree with me that there are no hypotheticals that don't imply the truth of the law of identity and you'd realize the OP's question was nonsense, you'd understand the relevance and you'd stop telling me that you agree and stop telling me to address the nonsense question in the OP.
The only way I'm having a communication difficulty is being unable to explain in simple enough terms why we DON'T agree and why the OP's question can't be answered because it's nonsense. If we agreed you'd agree with me that there are no hypotheticals that don't imply the truth of the law of identity and you'd realize the OP's question was nonsense, you'd understand the relevance and you'd stop telling me that you agree and stop telling me to address the nonsense question in the OP.
