Alright, it seems that sophistry is still running amok in these threads. Let me chime in once more because this is getting old.
If one desires to be rational and logical, one cannot operate under the assumption that negative assertions require rebuttals. For example, we cannot operate under the belief that sdp is guilty of theft before the belief that he is innocent. By that logic, we are assuming his guilt before the evidence is presented. That is called poisoning the well. It isn't really rational behaviour. We first assume that he is innocent of a crime. Then, we provide the evidence and show, beyond reasonable doubt, that sdp is guilty of theft.
Sophists in this thread are asking us to prove that the Russel's Teapot is blue, and not actually red. What they do not understand is that this assertion still relies upon the existence of the teapot to begin with. For those that aren't familiar, Bertrand Russel made a bold, but fallacious, claim that there existed a teapot in the Earth's orbit somewhere. The fact that nobody could prove him wrong meant that the existence of the teapot was verified. But that's still operating under the assumption that the teapot exists, ergo one must first prove to him that it doesn't exist. That's not how the burden of proof operates. Russel must first prove that it exists.
Now let's extend this logic to this thread. First off, we CANNOT assert, and then ask of others to refute, that pornstar 'x' has 'y' length, because this is assuming that they actually DO have this length to begin with, and that they must be proven wrong. You can't make that assertion without providing your proof first. Now, do I think sdp is unbiased/objective? Well, he has a penis, so no. There will always be comparison. But the amount of times he replicated his results does remove this margin of error. Unless you can provide superior evidence and show that his evidence/methodology is flawed USING SUPERIOR EVIDENCE, then you cannot claim that he has no standing. Right now, he's got the best standing of us all. Like I said, I think the bigger guys are in the late 8 inch ranges, touching nine. Some perhaps going a little above nine when measured very favourably. I have noticed that when if you stand up straight and bend your penis downwards, you get longer measurements. Start at your pubic bone and stand up to measure, you will amaze yourself how long you can actually get. At least half an inch increase, at least for me.
Once again, sophists like Goldzilla do not present superior evidence. Only hearsay and eye-balling. No replication of measurements, going off of one image that boosts their narrative. If sdp just showed me one image and said "welp, that's the size, pack it up guys I found a good angle that made him look bigger/smaller than he actually is", I would be much more skeptical. His measurement right now isn't a standard, absolute measurement, but a compilation of all others. If you actually pay attention to his posts, he shows that he sometimes measures him at closer to nine, sometimes closer to eight. This is only logical, for the following reasons. One: it is the porn industry and it is in their financial interests to remain mysterious regarding lengths. These are the same guys who make 10-11 inch, even footlong inch claims. If you take their claims at face-value, you aren't really making a good case for being rational. I will trust sdp's bias over some porno company's bias any day. If you just find one measurement they gave you and go off of that, you aren't making a good case for being cynical, and in these matters, it is a good thing to be a cynic.
Second, as I mentioned earlier: sdp uses tiny measurements, i.e. pixels. The porno industry won't give us a legitimate measurement, so that is the next best thing. Goldzilla and other sophists use massive units for measurement, and comparison measurements. Using cups and tubes of toilet paper aren't great methods of measuring an object. The tinier the unit, the more accurate. "Which do you think is more accurate: the size of a hand or the size of a pixel? To elaborate, let me put forth another question. What is the best tool to use in order to measure a relatively average (relative to your body) object: an aluminum can or a piano? You know both objects do not change dimensions, but which is superior? The answer is the aluminum can, because it is a smaller unit of measurement. It can be more accurate. The length of the object can be 6 cans long, as opposed to one-sixteenth the length of a piano. When considering our situation, we cannot get to a one-sixteenth length (if we could, we would just use a ruler), so the pixel measurement is superior over the eye-balling hand measurement.
Then you claim that sdp's measurement is subjective, which means that he manipulated the results in order to make it seem smaller than it is. If so, prove it. Put forth your own evidence to trump his, otherwise you have no standing to refute others on."
Standing next to tiny girls, having a small body frame yourself, manipulating camera angles (i.e. fisheye), unfair measuring tactics (bending down penis to make it seem longer) will all make it seem like every second guy walking down the street has a foot of penis, but that is not how things operate in reality. sdp made a claim and provided his evidence. He clearly outlined his methodology. If he was really biased, then why did he give, in some scenes, a larger measurement, over 9?
Now, forget all of this. Let's return to the original point: the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. sdp makes the claim, provides evidence. He isn't saying that the teapot is blue, he is guiding us to a telescope and letting us see for ourselves. You cannot, now, ask for him to prove that the teapot is actually red. You need to present superior evidence to trump his. You need to show that sdp is manipulating the lens of the telescope, and that it actually IS red. If you can do that, I am on your side. Emphasis on SUPERIOR EVIDENCE, not eye-balling measurements and using comparisons. If you claim that the truth is so overt and obvious, you should be able to show his length without resorting to side-by-side comparisons. Like I said earlier: Why do you rely on comparison as opposed to outright measurements of the case-in-point? If the result is SO obvious and overt, why not just prove the length from the case-in-point, as opposed to resorting to other people? That is the equivalent of measuring a length with your hand and then moving over to the object you wish to compare it to while trying to hold your hand still (so as to maintain the original measurement). It isn't very accurate, why not just measure the object-in-question upfront? Goldzilla's frame-of-reference resorts to the same reasoning. If you claim the truth is on your side, just prove it with the measurement as it is.
If one desires to be rational and logical, one cannot operate under the assumption that negative assertions require rebuttals. For example, we cannot operate under the belief that sdp is guilty of theft before the belief that he is innocent. By that logic, we are assuming his guilt before the evidence is presented. That is called poisoning the well. It isn't really rational behaviour. We first assume that he is innocent of a crime. Then, we provide the evidence and show, beyond reasonable doubt, that sdp is guilty of theft.
Sophists in this thread are asking us to prove that the Russel's Teapot is blue, and not actually red. What they do not understand is that this assertion still relies upon the existence of the teapot to begin with. For those that aren't familiar, Bertrand Russel made a bold, but fallacious, claim that there existed a teapot in the Earth's orbit somewhere. The fact that nobody could prove him wrong meant that the existence of the teapot was verified. But that's still operating under the assumption that the teapot exists, ergo one must first prove to him that it doesn't exist. That's not how the burden of proof operates. Russel must first prove that it exists.
Now let's extend this logic to this thread. First off, we CANNOT assert, and then ask of others to refute, that pornstar 'x' has 'y' length, because this is assuming that they actually DO have this length to begin with, and that they must be proven wrong. You can't make that assertion without providing your proof first. Now, do I think sdp is unbiased/objective? Well, he has a penis, so no. There will always be comparison. But the amount of times he replicated his results does remove this margin of error. Unless you can provide superior evidence and show that his evidence/methodology is flawed USING SUPERIOR EVIDENCE, then you cannot claim that he has no standing. Right now, he's got the best standing of us all. Like I said, I think the bigger guys are in the late 8 inch ranges, touching nine. Some perhaps going a little above nine when measured very favourably. I have noticed that when if you stand up straight and bend your penis downwards, you get longer measurements. Start at your pubic bone and stand up to measure, you will amaze yourself how long you can actually get. At least half an inch increase, at least for me.
Once again, sophists like Goldzilla do not present superior evidence. Only hearsay and eye-balling. No replication of measurements, going off of one image that boosts their narrative. If sdp just showed me one image and said "welp, that's the size, pack it up guys I found a good angle that made him look bigger/smaller than he actually is", I would be much more skeptical. His measurement right now isn't a standard, absolute measurement, but a compilation of all others. If you actually pay attention to his posts, he shows that he sometimes measures him at closer to nine, sometimes closer to eight. This is only logical, for the following reasons. One: it is the porn industry and it is in their financial interests to remain mysterious regarding lengths. These are the same guys who make 10-11 inch, even footlong inch claims. If you take their claims at face-value, you aren't really making a good case for being rational. I will trust sdp's bias over some porno company's bias any day. If you just find one measurement they gave you and go off of that, you aren't making a good case for being cynical, and in these matters, it is a good thing to be a cynic.
Second, as I mentioned earlier: sdp uses tiny measurements, i.e. pixels. The porno industry won't give us a legitimate measurement, so that is the next best thing. Goldzilla and other sophists use massive units for measurement, and comparison measurements. Using cups and tubes of toilet paper aren't great methods of measuring an object. The tinier the unit, the more accurate. "Which do you think is more accurate: the size of a hand or the size of a pixel? To elaborate, let me put forth another question. What is the best tool to use in order to measure a relatively average (relative to your body) object: an aluminum can or a piano? You know both objects do not change dimensions, but which is superior? The answer is the aluminum can, because it is a smaller unit of measurement. It can be more accurate. The length of the object can be 6 cans long, as opposed to one-sixteenth the length of a piano. When considering our situation, we cannot get to a one-sixteenth length (if we could, we would just use a ruler), so the pixel measurement is superior over the eye-balling hand measurement.
Then you claim that sdp's measurement is subjective, which means that he manipulated the results in order to make it seem smaller than it is. If so, prove it. Put forth your own evidence to trump his, otherwise you have no standing to refute others on."
Standing next to tiny girls, having a small body frame yourself, manipulating camera angles (i.e. fisheye), unfair measuring tactics (bending down penis to make it seem longer) will all make it seem like every second guy walking down the street has a foot of penis, but that is not how things operate in reality. sdp made a claim and provided his evidence. He clearly outlined his methodology. If he was really biased, then why did he give, in some scenes, a larger measurement, over 9?
Now, forget all of this. Let's return to the original point: the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. sdp makes the claim, provides evidence. He isn't saying that the teapot is blue, he is guiding us to a telescope and letting us see for ourselves. You cannot, now, ask for him to prove that the teapot is actually red. You need to present superior evidence to trump his. You need to show that sdp is manipulating the lens of the telescope, and that it actually IS red. If you can do that, I am on your side. Emphasis on SUPERIOR EVIDENCE, not eye-balling measurements and using comparisons. If you claim that the truth is so overt and obvious, you should be able to show his length without resorting to side-by-side comparisons. Like I said earlier: Why do you rely on comparison as opposed to outright measurements of the case-in-point? If the result is SO obvious and overt, why not just prove the length from the case-in-point, as opposed to resorting to other people? That is the equivalent of measuring a length with your hand and then moving over to the object you wish to compare it to while trying to hold your hand still (so as to maintain the original measurement). It isn't very accurate, why not just measure the object-in-question upfront? Goldzilla's frame-of-reference resorts to the same reasoning. If you claim the truth is on your side, just prove it with the measurement as it is.
