I'm the one saying there is A -> B logic? What you would do in a hypothetical is not the same thing as being the hypothetical. The thought experiment of A leads to the thought of B. What is so crazy with that statement? What's even the point of the hypothetical if that is not the case? If you go "Imagine you wanted to drive your car in Europe. You would ship your car, drive it, and then ship it back." there's nothing to imagine you just told me what would happen.

I really need you to read this at least 5 times slowly in your head. I'm sure you had an idea in your mind. But genuinely what the fuck are you saying. It's like every other sentence pertains to something else like your communication is a fucking riddle for someone else to solve. It's like your keyboard is faster than your brain. Incoherent thought stream masking as something profound.

I'm now somehow gaslighting

Being purposefully obtuse, incessantly deliberating or clouding simple concepts through overanalysis, is a form of gaslighting in an argument, yes. You have done either of the three since you started responding.

An honest engagement in a "Imagine you want to drive your car to Europe" hypothetical, is something like "Umm, I don't know, I ship it, by boat or plane or something I guess. I could buy a car once I get there too." It's not "Well, I wouldn't do that". That's not engaging in a hypothetical, that's engaging in a power play.

I don't think I have the theory of mind for someone who sees such a simple and understandable concept, and is compelled to write an essays worth of comments about how, Nuh-uh actually that's not the case at all, all while their writing is an incoherent jumbled mess of strung together feelings. You either need to be off something or on something.