This strikes me as a frame of reference problem. I see three frames; (1) mine, (2) my copy's, and (3) yours.
Dan Fabulich asserts that from his frame of reference, my copy and I are indistiguishable. Thus they are both Scott Badger. This suggests, of course, that for Scott Badger to continue, either the original or the copy could be destroyed and no harm would be done. Sure . . . from your frame of reference.
My copy (Scott 2) would believe himself to be the original unless it was convincingly demonstrated that he was, in fact, the copy. I (Scott 1) would also be aware that I am the original. That, alone, would make us distinguishable. When we're all three in the same room and you look at Scott 1, point to Scott 2, and say, "That's you.", both Scott's will certainly disagree with you. And they would be right to do so.
It's easier to accept your assertions if Scott 1 is destroyed and Scott 2 is
not made aware of the fact that he's a copy, *and* if you are not aware that
a copy was ever made. Now, for all intents and purposes of interaction, he
*is* me. But . . . who speaks for the dead? Just because my frame of
reference is unable to be expressed doesn't make it non-existent does it?