Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080115-AP-chimp.html

There are worse laws on the books.

So, why can't someone take him as a pet? Or if they have so many donations open a new smaller shelter for the monkey?

He's an ape.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, why can't someone take him as a pet? Or if they have so many donations open a new smaller shelter for the monkey?
That was my thinking, but that's just me using my brain.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
He's an ape.

http://www.goingfaster.com/icarus/notang.gif

"Get your stinking paws of me, you dame dirty ape!"

It's like apartheid, but on a species level rather than a race level. Both are a bit silly, species-level apartheid only slightly less so.

It's only sheer coincidence that intermediate species between us and apes (our closest relatives) don't exist anymore. A few intermediaries between us and them would throw open a gigantic can of worms for those who place some special significance in humans beyond cognitive complexity. Hell, there's already monkeys that can converse with people in sign language and have learned thousands of words. What point do we need to reach before we realize "is this thing a 'person'?" isn't a valid question. It's demarcating false distinctions on what is more akin to a smooth line of descendancy, not rigid groups that should and shouldn't have rights.

Well, monkeys/apes do share about 90% or more of human DNA, don't they? So you could say that the monkey/ape whatever it is, is almost human...

Crap law, when you can't even help an animal in need.
What about animal shelters? I assume they have these - if only humans can recieve gifts, who donates to the animal shelters?

Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
Well, monkeys/apes do share about 90% or more of human DNA, don't they? So you could say that the monkey/ape whatever it is, is almost human...

Crap law, when you can't even help an animal in need.
What about animal shelters? I assume they have these - if only humans can recieve gifts, who donates to the animal shelters?

Yes, around 90%, but that's a bit misleading. We share a large percentage of DNA with a lot of different species, not just apes. You can even find traces of shared DNA with much different species (squids, for example). I forget exact percentages, but it's higher than most would assume once you go past apes.

Scientists sometimes use percentage of DNA comparisons to determine rough estimates of how far back we have common ancestors with modern species. It's via this process that we determine where fish ancestors branched into reptiles, amphibians, eventually mammals, where reptiles brached into birds, etc. etc. so that we form a fairly accurate tree of descendants and ancestors for each species.


...

But in any case, yeah, crap law.

A few years ago a report came out that based on genetic evidence Chimpanzees should be reclassified from the Pan genus into the Homo genus.

Chimpanzees are highly intelligent animals, capable of grasping human language and outperforming humans in some simple cognitive tasks. It blurs the lines between what you can say is or isn't a person.

Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
Well, monkeys/apes do share about 90% or more of human DNA, don't they? So you could say that the monkey/ape whatever it is, is almost human...

I heard similar things in highschool biology as well. I think it is between 96 and 98%. Does anyone even know what that 9x% number is a measure of?

But what does that number even mean? I understand genetic nucleotide sequences better because that makes more sense. It translates into tangible manifestations, both physiological(something we all can relate to) and chemical(something nerds in lab coats in clean environments can relate to.). I read about a study done by Asao(sp?) Fujiyama and his associates which presented a large amount of data about nucleotide sequences compared between humans and chimps. I think they came up with 48 or 49% match between nucleotide sequences. (I didn't verify that so I could be talking out of my ass.) Hell, Chimps have one more pair of chromosomes than we do! (I had a long and drawn out debate about this one with a dumb ass creationist.)

No, a chimp should never have the same rights as a human. In fact, they never had rights and should never have rights. "Gasp" you say? The "rights" part of it simply comes down to another form of "rights" for humans and not the chimp: a negative "right", or rather, laws that prevent humans from doing certain things to chimps or other animals for that matter. We call these things "animal rights" because people like tree hugging animal lovers feel better saying "rights" but let's get real; are they really "animal rights" or are they simply "rules" for humans?

Granted, animals need to be protected from dumb ass humans and their willful destruction of the planet. (Now I sound like Captain Planet...sort of. )

Initial estimates were based on hybridization studies, but since the chimpanzee draft genome data was published the ~96% figure has been based on nucleotide sequence homology as far as I'm aware. I don't know where you found a figure of 48%... ermm
http://www.genome.gov/15515096
And the journal article referred to in the news article. Free full text, how nice of Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

There's probably more refined data published since then, but I'm feeling lazy.

Human chromosome 2 is derived from fusion of two chromosomes; an ancestral species of humans at some point had 48 chromosomes too. It's highly homologous to what are referred to as chromosome 2p and 2q in chimpanzees.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It's like apartheid, but on a species level rather than a race level. Both are a bit silly, species-level apartheid only slightly less so.

It's only sheer coincidence that intermediate species between us and apes (our closest relatives) don't exist anymore. A few intermediaries between us and them would throw open a gigantic can of worms for those who place some special significance in humans beyond cognitive complexity. Hell, there's already monkeys that can converse with people in sign language and have learned thousands of words. What point do we need to reach before we realize "is this thing a 'person'?" isn't a valid question. It's demarcating false distinctions on what is more akin to a smooth line of descendancy, not rigid groups that should and shouldn't have rights.
Good God, it's posts like this that remind me not to listen to Peter Singer.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Initial estimates were based on hybridization studies, but since the chimpanzee draft genome data was published the ~96% figure has been based on nucleotide sequence homology as far as I'm aware. I don't know where you found a figure of 48%... ermm
http://www.genome.gov/15515096
And the journal article referred to in the news article. Free full text, how nice of Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

There's probably more refined data published since then, but I'm feeling lazy.

I told you where I found my figure. Well it looks like I am going to back up what I say.

It took a bit, but I found something.

"Amazingly, the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

After reading through that article, it seemed to be strangely biased to someone trying to prove "creationism" so I don't think that that is the best of articles.

After further research, it looks like it was just pair 21..but I didn't research very well. It has been several years since I read about that project and I might have come across it because some creationist was trying to make a point. (I remember so much "stuff" that it is hard for me to remember where I remembered it from.)

Also, the data on this subject can be "dummied down" into a form to fit whatever purpose you want. In addition, some liberty has to be taken when comparing DNA sequences(nucleotide sequences.) to make an accurate comparison such as nucleotide divergence corrections.

In conclusion to what I said earlier, the 98%(Should be closer to 95% or less) number was wrong by recent studies. (Like I thought.) That number was a nucleotide sequence comparison. (Which was the only way I though a genome comparison could be done.) The 48% number I was thinking of was misleading and my memory was shoddy at best.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Human chromosome 2 is derived from fusion of two chromosomes; an ancestral species of humans at some point had 48 chromosomes too. It's highly homologous to what are referred to as chromosome 2p and 2q in chimpanzees.

That is fundamental to understanding human's speciation. But try explaining that to a hard headed creationist. They like to throw all sorts of things at you like polymorphism and how the number of polymorphism is greater in one community of chimpanzees than the entire human race exhibits. (Conveniently discounting completely that humans experienced a mass extinction and we are all descendants of a hand full of early humans.)

We can't and shouldn't give monkeys the same rights we enjox as they are incapable of assuming the responsibilities that come with it.

There should (and probably are) all sorts of mechanism to provide for this ape without granting him the status as a person (a definition it certainly does not fit). I believe that is just animal lover propaganda.

looks like we should debate the rights of the ape vs the rights of man?

where do we draw the line?
black, white, or shades of grey?

Monkeys get the same rights as other animals--namely, the right not to be raped, tortured, and/or mutilated. As they are not sentient in the same way that humans are sentient, they don't get special privileges.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Monkeys get the same rights as other animals--namely, the right not to be raped, tortured, and/or mutilated. As they are not sentient in the same way that humans are sentient, they don't get special privileges.

How we treat other animals is a direct statement on our humanity.

Hypothetical: If an advanced race (as far above us as we are above monkeys) where to come to Earth, would we want them to treat us like we treat other animals?

We're sentient enough to contemplate our own sentience. I'm pretty sure that counts as deserving the same rights.

Of course, this brings up the issue of sentience--what if we aren't so hot on the sentience block? What if there are things with more sentience than we have? What would that be like? How can one be more sentient than we are?

Originally posted by Bardock42
We can't and shouldn't give monkeys the same rights we enjox as they are incapable of assuming the responsibilities that come with it.

There should (and probably are) all sorts of mechanism to provide for this ape without granting him the status as a person (a definition it certainly does not fit). I believe that is just animal lover propaganda.

This is the most important aspect of this case

This isn't just a matter of whether apes have "person" or even "individual" characteristics, but that apes would be given the exact same constitutional privileges as humans.

Freedom of movement? Freedom of association? Sexual freedom (if monkeys are people, I can have sex with them)?

Originally posted by GCG
looks like we should debate the rights of the ape vs the rights of man?

where do we draw the line?
black, white, or shades of grey?

That's my point. Drawing lines in general is a bad idea, because there will never be a good place to make one.

The most intelligent apes are more intelligent than most young children and mentally deficient. So the intelligence argument goes out the window with that, because if we are denying them rights based on a lack of intelligence then we really need to start considering mentally handicapped people as sub-human. It's clearly

It's just a species bias. Sure, they aren't on the same cognitive level as us and have different needs and often need their natural environment or people to care for them. So any laws should reflect those different needs, but not restrict them unecessarily. But they are nearly as sentient as us, and we have no reason to believe they don't have emotions like we do (happiness, joy, pain, fear, sorrow, etc.).

Animals get animal rights. Humans get human rights. Apes != humans.

If people really think an ape should have the same rights as a human, then lets give apes the rights to vote, drive and own a gun.

Originally posted by Robtard
If people really think an ape should have the same rights as a human, then lets give apes the rights to vote, drive and own a gun.

I don't really think anyone is advocating that. I seem to be one of the more outspoken advocates for the apes in this thread, and my posts clearly endorse nothing of the sort. So if you intended to sneak this in as a straw man, it didn't work.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't really think anyone is advocating that. I seem to be one of the more outspoken advocates for the apes in this thread, and my posts clearly endorse nothing of the sort. So if you intended to sneak this in as a straw man, it didn't work.

thats the point

Nobody is saying that apes aren't biologically close to humans

However, that statement is not the same as giving apes legal personhood.

I think everyone agrees with the strict biology, but the implications of this from a socio-political context are, quite literally, apes owning guns and having the exact same freedoms you do.

For instance, since an ape is a person, if it contracted rabies and attacked someone, it would have to be arrested, tried, and put in jail.

I don't even think people would be against special rules for highly evolved animals, but to give them legal personhood is not a good idea.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't really think anyone is advocating that. I seem to be one of the more outspoken advocates for the apes in this thread, and my posts clearly endorse nothing of the sort. So if you intended to sneak this in as a straw man, it didn't work. I am sorry, but it is not straw man. It is the issue at hand. That's what they are trying.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
We're sentient enough to contemplate our own sentience. I'm pretty sure that counts as deserving the same rights.

Of course, this brings up the issue of sentience--what if we aren't so hot on the sentience block? What if there are things with more sentience than we have? What would that be like? How can one be more sentient than we are?

We may not be sentient enough to know.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I don't really think anyone is advocating that. I seem to be one of the more outspoken advocates for the apes in this thread, and my posts clearly endorse nothing of the sort. So if you intended to sneak this in as a straw man, it didn't work.

People are trying to have the chimp in question "declared a person", so what I said isn't a strawman and it is on topic, did you actually read the story or just the title?

Originally posted by Robtard
People are trying to have the chimp in question "declared a person", so what I said isn't a strawman and it is on topic, did you actually read the story or just the title?

No, I read the story.

This statement summarizes my thoughts:
"They aren't on the same cognitive level as us and have different needs and often need their natural environment or people to care for them. So any laws should reflect those different needs, but not restrict them unnecessarily."
...basically, I see a lot of the non-personhood reflecting nothing but a species bias that has us perceiving us as somehow more privileged than them. This is wrong.

But there's nothing wrong with accepting their cognitive limitations and catering their rights as such. It's the same reason we make legal ages for children for alcohol consumption, smoking, owning a gun, etc. This is no different.

Being declared a "person" (an amorphous distinction anyway) doesn't mean unrestricted freedom.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, I read the story.

This statement summarizes my thoughts:
"They aren't on the same cognitive level as us and have different needs and often need their natural environment or people to care for them. So any laws should reflect those different needs, but not restrict them unnecessarily."
...basically, I see a lot of the non-personhood reflecting nothing but a species bias that has us perceiving us as somehow more privileged than them. This is wrong.

But there's nothing wrong with accepting their cognitive limitations and catering their rights as such. It's the same reason we make legal ages for children for alcohol consumption, smoking, owning a gun, etc. This is no different.

You're ****ing dense...

"An animal-rights group had sought to have the chimp, Matthew Hiasl Pan, declared a person, hoping to gain guardianship of the animal"

Point being, if the chimp were to be legally declared a person, then it would have all the rights of a person; of which would include what I said and several other rights.

Edit:

In response to the the last line you added, yes, it would have restrictions just as we do, as people, since it would legally be "a person." i.e. if it mudered someone, it could be jailed etc. etc. etc.

http://www.burntimenow.com/114.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
You're ****ing dense...

"An animal-rights group had sought to have the chimp, Matthew Hiasl Pan, declared a person, hoping to gain guardianship of the animal"

Point being, if the chimp were to be legally declared a person, then it would have all the rights of a person; of which would include what I said and several other rights.

Edit:

In response to the the last line you added, yes, it would have restrictions just as we do, as people, since it would legally be "a person." i.e. if it mudered someone, it could be jailed etc. etc. etc.

No need for insults.



So you tried to refute me by saying it has all the rights of a human, then agreed with me that there should (and would) be restrictions like those we place on children?? The two are fairly contradictory, and I really think you're just not seeing how it's a plausible solution so long as intelligent restrictions are placed on them that reflect their abilities and cognitive level.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No need for insults.



So you tried to refute me by saying it has all the rights of a human, then agreed with me that there should (and would) be restrictions like those we place on children?? The two are fairly contradictory, and I really think you're just not seeing how it's a plausible solution so long as intelligent restrictions are placed on them that reflect their abilities and cognitive level.

You're right, I apologize.

WTF? I did no such thing, re-read what I said. I am saying that if it were to be declared a person, then it would have all the rights of a person. Also, this chimp is at least 25 years old and can live to be around 60. So it would have the rights of an adult, not a child, in the case of this chimp.

Giving the animals rights, i.e. making it illegal to murder it, torture it, abuse etc., is one thing (of which I agree with), but this story is about "declaring it a person." Which is what I did and am responding to.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No need for insults.



So you tried to refute me by saying it has all the rights of a human, then agreed with me that there should (and would) be restrictions like those we place on children?? The two are fairly contradictory, and I really think you're just not seeing how it's a plausible solution so long as intelligent restrictions are placed on them that reflect their abilities and cognitive level. There wouldn't be restrictions if they would just be accepted as "persons" right now in our legal system. Besides, what's the point in granting them the status of a "person", they aren't by definition. We could give them rights without having to compromise our language in the process.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're right, I apologize.

WTF? I did no such thing. I am saying that if it were to be declared a person, then it would have all the rights of a person. Also, this chimp is at least 25 years old and can live to be around 60. So it would have the rights of an adult, not a child, in the case of this chimp.

Giving the animals rights, i.e. making it illegal to murder it, torture it, abuse etc., is one thing (of which I agree with), but this story is about "declaring it a person." Which is what did and am responding to.

You're just copy/pasting the same laws for humans onto similarly aged apes. It wouldn't work like that. In all likelihood, apes would have laws similar to those we have for young children, but they'd have them for their entire lives. It still ensures person-hood without giving them rights that are obviously dangerous and silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There wouldn't be restrictions if they would just be accepted as "persons" right now in our legal system. Besides, what's the point in granting them the status of a "person", they aren't by definition. We could give them rights without having to compromise our language in the process.

Ok, so if you want to grant them more rights but not use the word, that's fine. Not much more than semantics, but if it dodges more controversy while have the same result, I'm fine with it.

I am against that proposal because it would give them more rights than they should have and would create more problems. I don't have a problem with giving them a large portion of rights, they just have to be reasonable. I doubt anyone is arguing against that either. Just what those people were trying is bullshit.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're just copy/pasting the same laws for humans onto similarly aged apes. It wouldn't work like that. In all likelihood, apes would have laws similar to those we have for young children, but they'd have them for their entire lives. It still ensures person-hood without giving them rights that are obviously dangerous and silly.


"In all likelihood", sure, if specific laws were made, are you sure they would be? As it stands now, if the ape were to be declared a human, then it would legally have the rights of a human, which part of that can't you grasp?

There's no logical reason to grant a chimp the legal status of a person, there are laws for animals already, we don't need to redefine the meaning of the word person.

Originally posted by Robtard
"In all likelihood", sure, if specific laws were made, are you sure they would be? As it stands now, if the ape were to be declared a human, then it would legally have the rights of a human, which part of that can't you grasp?

There's no logical reason to grant a chimp the legal status of a person, there are laws for animals already, we don't need to redefine the meaning of the word person.

As you word it (and as the article describes it), I'd also be against it. So I guess we are, in fact, in some agreement. I just see it as something that's potentially possible, and even preferable to no rights or grouping others as "animals" and us as "humans", but it would have to be done with the limitations in mind that I mentioned.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're just copy/pasting the same laws for humans onto similarly aged apes. It wouldn't work like that. In all likelihood, apes would have laws similar to those we have for young children, but they'd have them for their entire lives. It still ensures person-hood without giving them rights that are obviously dangerous and silly.

yes

however, if an ape is declared a "person", simply because of how laws work, they get the same rights as adults.

Ya, semantics are lame, but in the case of legalese, the distinction between "person-hood" and "child-hood" are monumental

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As you word it (and as the article describes it), I'd also be against it. So I guess we are, in fact, in some agreement. I just see it as something that's potentially possible, and even preferable to no rights or grouping others as "animals" and us as "humans", but it would have to be done with the limitations in mind that I mentioned.

Animals do have rights. If I were to curbstomp my dog, it would be illegal and I could serve time in jail.

Originally posted by Robtard
Animals do have rights. If I were to curbstomp my dog, it would be illegal and I could serve time in jail.

True true. But as we've extrapolated on, the line between human and ape is blurred much more so than with dogs. I see no problem with giving them human-like rights, and even calling it that. But I'd of course stop short of ALL rights that the article mentioned, as I've hopefully made clear.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
True true. But as we've extrapolated on, the line between human and ape is blurred much more so than with dogs. I see no problem with giving them human-like rights, and even calling it that. But I'd of course stop short of ALL rights that the article mentioned, as I've hopefully made clear. What human rights would that be?

haha, I'll just keep responding to comments made to other people

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But I'd of course stop short of ALL rights that the article mentioned, as I've hopefully made clear.

I think what most people are reacting against is the idea that ALL rights would be given to apes, which would occur if a court called them a "person".

Originally posted by Bardock42
What human rights would that be?

Not a clue, to be honest. I've really overstepped myself here in technical knowledge and have basically just been talking ideologically. I only originally posted to spur thought on the capabilities of apes for those who see us as clearly removed from them....sort of a counter to species-ist arguments (which never really came). Clearly a different direction was taken. I never really intended to enter the debate from the article.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think what most people are reacting against is the idea that ALL rights would be given to apes, which would occur if a court called them a "person".

Right, which I'd also be opposed on for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Not a clue, to be honest. I've really overstepped myself here in technical knowledge and have basically just been talking ideologically. I only originally posted to spur thought on the capabilities of apes for those who see us as clearly removed from them....sort of a counter to species-ist arguments (which never really came). Clearly a different direction was taken. I never really intended to enter the debate from the article.



Right, which I'd also be opposed on for obvious reasons. Fair enough.

I personally am wondering about what rights one should give animals and in what categories as well.

Animals should be exempt from torture, mutilation, cruel and unusual punishment, and neglect. The domestic animals like dogs and cats should have the additional freedom of not being cooked into Chinese stir-fry.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Animals should be exempt from torture, mutilation, cruel and unusual punishment, and neglect. The domestic animals like dogs and cats should have the additional freedom of not being cooked into Chinese stir-fry. Why Dogs and Cats though? It seems random.

We like dogs and cats here in the States. I don't know about your Germanic ways. Do you guys keep Nazis for pets?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
We like dogs and cats here in the States. I don't know about your Germanic ways. Do you guys keep Nazis for pets? Well, but others like dogs and cats in their food. Why should they not be allowed to have them?

Because we lived in a civilized nation, not some barbarous tribe like the Reds.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because we lived in a civilized nation, not some barbarous tribe like the Reds. You realize that whether you eat cats and dogs does not relate to the amount of civilization of a society.

Again, they're largely arbitrary lines that are drawn. How is eating rabbit (which is done here) more acceptable than dog? Or any animal? So I'd tend to agree with bardock that it doesn't directly correlate to civilization level, but more to societal norms.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Again, they're largely arbitrary lines that are drawn. How is eating rabbit (which is done here) more acceptable than dog? Or any animal? So I'd tend to agree with bardock that it doesn't directly correlate to civilization level, but more to societal norms.

I don't think you have laws against eating dogs and cats anyways, do you?

The market takes care of it itself.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think you have laws against eating dogs and cats anyways, do you?

The market takes care of it itself.

I really don't know if we do or not. It's not something I think about too often. But the societal norm is so strongly against it that there likely wouldn't need to be a law.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You realize that whether you eat cats and dogs does not relate to the amount of civilization of a society.
Of course I do. I was doing satire.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Of course I do. I was doing satire.

I see.

Isn't the whole argument backing up this Chimps right for Sentience/humanity basically that it is capable of watching television and playing video games ?

Because if so...well....it isn't really that much of an achievement.

Show me a chimp get a perfect score on Dragonforce on Professional on Guitar Hero 3 and THEN we can start talking

Originally posted by grey fox
Isn't the whole argument backing up this Chimps right for Sentience/humanity basically that it is capable of watching television and playing video games ?

Because if so...well....it isn't really that much of an achievement.

Show me a chimp get a perfect score on Dragonforce on Professional on Guitar Hero 3 and THEN we can start talking

Pffft! Anyone who plays Guitar Hero IS a chump.



...I mean "chimp."



shifty

Originally posted by grey fox
Isn't the whole argument backing up this Chimps right for Sentience/humanity basically that it is capable of watching television and playing video games ?

Because if so...well....it isn't really that much of an achievement.

Show me a chimp get a perfect score on Dragonforce on Professional on Guitar Hero 3 and THEN we can start talking

I don't think a chimp would be dumb enough to want to play Guitar Hero.

Edit: Damn it, Digi beat me to it.

Hey, I don't play it, I just acknowledge that it takes Skill to beat Dragonforce.

chimps could probably be taught to play gaytar queero.

Language, they will never learn.

Originally posted by Robtard
If people really think an ape should have the same rights as a human, then lets give apes the rights to vote, drive and own a gun.

Have you ever been to Alabama? Because I think this has already happened.

Look, only a fool would fail to realize that the chimp in question can (and hopefully will) easily be saved WITHOUT the drastic measure of granting it "person-hood" status. The dictionary defines "person" as human... and while simians are remarkably similar to us, they are not human. An extension of animal rights will take care of this chimp just fine. As for all the scientific data being quoted, I say buyer beware. Not all research is rigorous, peer-reviewed, and well accepted in the scientific community... and some of it is pure garbage.
I admit here and now that I am not a scientist, just someone (probably like most of us on this thread) with a little higher education, and a layman's interest in science. I've encountered far too many people on line- who write well and convincingly- who quote (and misquote) dubious articles, and outright fraudulent research, like much of the stuff creation "scientists" publish... so a little scepticism is a good thing.