Belief has nothing to do with it - evidence does. We're not talking religion here. It's all very well to say things like, ""For those who don't believe, no proof is possible", but this neatly circumvents the rather inconvenient problem that there appears to be NO proof whatsoever that 12-13" penises exist today.
...
I say again - the only issue here is evidence. Belief flows from that, not the other way around. There is empirical proof that 8 foot tall men exist, so I believe in them; there is none (that I know of) that men with 12-inch long penises exist, so I don't believe in them. It's as simple as that.
Although the quote I referenced ("For those who don't believe...") originally addressed religious faith, I'm using it in a somewhat different sense. I'm not implying that anyone should arbitrarily believe in the existence of 12" penises, just as they shouldn't arbitrarily in a teacup that revolves around the sun, to use Paige's reference of Bertrand Russell.
No, people can come to believe that 12" cocks are out there based on their understanding of human development and physiology, and the evidence they see of these cocks. As I said in my post that you're responding to, there is quite a bit of such evidence: any number of photographs and anecdotes that you and I and most everyone else reading this thread has seen at least some of.
Yes, this is
evidence, and not
proof. And most of it is bullshit, whether intentionally so or not (someone might overestimate a huge 10-incher they've seen in person as a 12-incher, for example). Of course, you have to use your best judgment to decide which evidence rings true, and which doesn't.
(Side note - You want to see legitimate
measured pics or videos. That's fine, if you don't trust your own ability to estimate size from photos. I think I'm pretty good at estimating size myself, so while it would certainly be nice to see rulers in these pics, I don't need them to be able to judge a cock as 12", or close to it.)
The combination of my own personal understanding of human development/physiology and my judgment of the evidence I've seen leads me to belief.
Now, some of what I'm saying seems like a circular argument: "I believe that 12" penises exist because of the evidence I've seen of them; I accept this evidence because I believe that it's possible for 12" penises to exist." Well, the thing is that even in science, logic, and mathematics, belief/"faith" and "proof" go hand-in-hand, rather than one strictly preceding the other.
All logical and mathematical proofs, for example, start from axioms that are accepted as absolute truth. That is, we have "faith" in their truth, because they seem utterly reasonable and consistent with our experience.
In short, you have to start somewhere. If it seems plausible that 12-inchers are out there, and if their existence jibes with your experience and understanding of the world, then you can accept the evidence of them (with a healthy skepticism). This is the sense in which I use "belief" in the quote above.
It's all very well to say things like, ""For those who don't believe, no proof is possible", but this neatly circumvents the rather inconvenient problem that there appears to be NO proof whatsoever that 12-13" penises exist today.
No proof - maybe - but definitely ample evidence, like I said. And besides, to throw another classic quote at you, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."
I'll address the anthropomorphic extreme measurements logical fallacy, as you put it, in a later post.