You also used the clause, "if someone raped you", stated as if it were a fact and not an allegation. Or, at least, that's how it reads to me.
If you posed the question, "How much would you want society to spend if someone raped you?" it would have carried a different connotation. But by asking "whats the limit on how much society should spend..." implies society knows for a fact that you were raped by someone.
Sorry if it's not the meaning you intended, but you made it sound like we should all believe Assange is guilty. I don't believe that's a reasonable conclusion.
> Oh please, you absolutely understood what he really meant and are arguing over the wrong usage of words rather than the point he was making.
First, I'm not entirely sure this person is a he. In the absence of an indicator of which gender a person is, I typically don't assume.
"Oh please, you absolutely understood" is not a justifiable statement here. What knowledge do you possess of what I do or do not understand?
And I'm not being pedantic here: I actually though that 'polack was trying to weasel in the suggestion that Assange is guilty without proving beyond a shadow of a doubt (which no Internet commentor really should be able to, barring a huge evidence mis-handling by the Swedish investigators).
The masculine form is traditionally used as the unmarked form when the gender is not known, it is not assuming any gender. And again, arguing over that while it is not even anywhere near the point we're discussing makes no sense. Although we lately have seen the emergence of gender neutral pronoun, it is rather unpleasing to use "he/she" is an informal discussion forum when the unmarked form meaning is well understood and has been for centuries.
As for the rest, what was meant higher up was that from the justice point of view at this stage of a case, whether the rape happened or not is not known nor required to make the decision, a complaint has been made and it is the job of the state offices (both police and justice) to ensure the case can go through unimpeded.
As such, the question asked clearly meant "if you make an accusation of rape against you, how much should the state be willing to pay to see the case go through if the person you accuse makes it difficult / what is the maximal amount after which they should stop".
Now, maybe english is not your first language, because this was sincerely very clear and evident that this is what was meant in the message.
Whether the person was really raped or whether that person makes it up does not change that amount, since the state does not know at that point and the amount is spent in order to see the case go through to figure it out.
> Although we lately have seen the emergence of gender neutral pronoun, it is rather unpleasing to use "he/she" is an informal discussion forum when the unmarked form meaning is well understood and has been for centuries.
Singular "they" works wonders.
> Now, maybe english is not your first language
Only non-programming language, actually.
> because this was sincerely very clear and evident that this is what was meant in the message.
I disagree, and that was the entirety of my point here.
