I see your point and there’s nothing foolish whatsoever in what you’ve written, but the actual point (the one that pertains to the practice the Buddha is giving) is that they’re both about what you (the supposed adherent) do. In both you’re supposed to do X, it doesn’t matter what Y does, so each is no different. Perhaps if Buddha got the chance to speak to someone dismembered by saws who hadn’t continued with a loving heart towards their attacker then he’d call them a bloody idiot too. I also don’t think it’s right to think that someone speaking that way is harbouring ill will, do we not sometimes scold children for their own good and out of love? Must we always be avoiding plain speaking so that we appear kind? He was a trainer, not someone’s mum.

I give you that - a more deadpan reaction would have been better. So you broke your vows - well, that's your life and you're no longer welcome among my disciples - good bye and best of luck. No need to get angry. But that's why nobody should take scriptures literally. They go through so many ears and mouths and pens that it's effectively a telephone game.

This isn't about being punished for not following rules or vows. According to tradition, there weren't even any rules in the beginning, but they developed in response to the growth of new recruits. This is a statement about the gravity of the situation for a monk specifically. To live a celibate monastic life is to be extremely sensitive and also to have an abusable power over others. Sexual misconduct is particularly dangerous for someone in a position of spiritual authority.

The example is extreme because it is meant to put the problem into context. Everyone can immediately think of someone harmed by religious sexual abuse, but the idea that it's the context of the sex and not the sex itself is still difficult for us to understand because of our preconceptions. Buddhist morality always focuses on intention and context. The rules for monks and lay people are completely different for a reason.