> I wouldn't call that degrees of change but degrees of damage.

If you define any change from a previous state that loses some state as damage, then that's a tautology, not an argument.

> The thing is, past a certain degree of damage people stop having opinions, so how would you know the individual is comfortable with it?

We don't. I didn't say everyone was ok with every change. Some people aren't ok with being mildly inebriated, hence my "different strokes for different folks" take. Some people are comfortable losing a decade of memories, and some people would mourn a day lost.

> In this case, the damage is total. The degrees end here, it reaches a binary state: from alive to dead. And then something else entirely says they are the dead person and they are alive.

You're equivocating death with the end of the self. The core conversation here is whether or not that is true, and my opinion is that it is a manner of degree. This goes back to the earlier mention of the teletransportation paradox. Different people how different opinions on what constitutes the self.

> The question is, does society accept a complete switchero?

Society has generally been pragmatic and taken the approach of "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck".

> The individual died in the process, they cannot give an opinion on this. The copy is another entity. There are no degrees, it's all absolutes with this process.

Again, you're assuming your opinion on what constitutes an individual is the one and only interpretation, which isn't the case.