Me: “This is your argument: If this irrational man shouldn’t hear the case, then neither should rational men.”
You: “I made no such argument.”
That proposition is necessary to the argument you made, which was, “Isn’t that concern (bias in a case bearing on the forced legitimization of same-sex attraction disorder) intrinsic to every judge?”
It is clear that such bias exists where a judge himself suffers from SSAD.
If rational men also harbor such bias, albeit in the other direction, then they too should be prohibited from hearing such cases.
Therefore, if all judges harbor such bias, then all should be excluded, rational men and SSAD sufferers alike.
That’s where your argument—that bias which would affect their judgment in cases bearing on the forced legitimization of same-sex attraction disorder is intrinsic to every judge—must necessarily and can only lead.
Excellent transition of interpretation, but my question about the indisputable nature of intrinsic bias is not something that can be proven to be invalid.
Let’s revisit your preceding question: “Conflict of interest didn’t occur to you?”
The easy answer is “Yes, it did occur”, but what I interpret as conflict of interest is irrelevant.
To support your concerns stemming from SSAD, it would seem that SSAD first requires some form of legal definition, which it may; prove why suffering from SSAD must disqualify the judge from serving; then prove the judge suffers from SSAD.
Personally, I would like to see the case served by a Conservative judge. Would you?