That question is about questions that are (roughly) of the form, "In a world with feature X, how could phenomenon Y occur?" and how to respond when you think that phenomenon Y could not occur under those conditions.
I see a lot of questions of that general form, where the questioner presents a set of conditions for their world, and asks about the consequences. On these questions, it is not uncommon for someone to post an answer that rejects the premise of the question. That is, in response to the question, "Under X circumstances, how would Y happen?" someone says, "X can't happen."
For example, this question, which has the constraints
the original is most assuredly dead, and the copy is most assuredly not the original
has an answer that says, "you are still you," thus rejecting the constraints. The question Weapon developed in modern melee only world has a number of answers that say "people would use ranged weapons anyway". And consider how much debate came up around How would society react if the existence of a god was scientifically proven? regarding whether or not God actually does exist or can be proven.
How should we respond these answers, that reject the conditions of the question or say that those conditions can't occur?
My instinct is that in creating fictional worlds, we will necessarily have fictional elements. Therefore, answers that reject those elements are not helpful and should be rejected as "not an answer," especially if that is the entire content and no alternatives are suggested. After all, I can't imagine that someone responding to a magic question with "magic is not real" would be very welcome. Is this correct, or are these answers acceptable? (Or is there some other response to consider?)