Comments on: Cat. Gets stuff. But it's a cat. Do you see?

Cat. Gets stuff. But it's a cat. Do you see?

Pretty_Generic — Tue, 06 May 2003 08:45:07 -0800

Cat... gets... gets stuff... I'm so poor... I think going to... maim someone...

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:01:12 -0800

I'm right there with you buddy. *shakes a meaty fist at the cat* Ahh, who am I kidding? I love cats of all shapes and sizes and positions in the cat income distribution chart.

By: zarah

zarah — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:09:15 -0800

Haha! This is *so* what t r a c y will be doing with her will. I won't be in the least sooprized to be left out totally, unless it's stipulated I take care of whatever cats she has when she kicks this mortal coil.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:09:32 -0800

I'm not angry with cat. I'm angry with person. Please, please hope me.

By: t r a c y

t r a c y — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:17:34 -0800

Pretty_G why would you be angry with the person unless you were a possible beneficiary...? This is *so* what t r a c y will be doing with her will that's right, i've got a proviso for the kitties. the person who takes care of them gets the... lion's share of my estate.

By: padraigin

padraigin — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:17:59 -0800

I was going to leave my fortune to the cats, but I realized that if I did, they'd blow it all on coke and whores. So I put it in a trust.

By: jburka

jburka — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:19:39 -0800

gee, pretty_generic, maybe you should try befriending wealthy old people...it sure paid off for the cat.

By: stifford

stifford — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:22:15 -0800

There's a David Cross comedy special (HBO I think) where he talks about rich people leaving their stuff to their cats. He does a pretend reading of the will for "Mr Whiskers", and then ends it with "P.S. Fuck the Poor". But, while it's not what I would have done, if it's their money they can give it to who they want.

By: Shane

Shane — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:23:17 -0800

If [Tinker] decides to leave home the trust fund will be ended and the estate will pass to the Wheatleys. If Tinker the cat doesn't die a natural death at an old age, I expect to see an inquiry into foul play...

By: Shane

Shane — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:24:40 -0800

*wonders if he can hook up his cat Boots with sugardaddy Tinker*

By: adzuki

adzuki — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:27:46 -0800

That woman probably was not very likable, if she did not have anyone else to leave her estate to, except for the cat. So maybe the cat was the only creature that could stand to be around her. Lonely old woman whom nobody liked with a lot of money. This is my interpretation.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:27:48 -0800

Pretty_G why would you be angry with the person unless you were a possible beneficiary? I like looking at the big picture. it sure paid off for the cat Yeah. Now the cat can be sure of a secure life without hunger, should it perchance live to three millennia hence.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:30:08 -0800

adzuki - no-one liked her because she'd rather give her money to a cat than to the starving children of Chad.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:32:40 -0800

Lonely old woman whom nobody liked with a lot of money. This is my interpretation. If [Tinker] decides to leave home the trust fund will be ended and the estate will pass to the Wheatleys. If Tinker the cat doesn't die a natural death at an old age, I expect to see an inquiry into foul play... What is "leave home"? Walks next door to the Wheatleys...sounds fishy, it all goes to the neighbor if the cat leaves.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:33:23 -0800

And you thought Toonces had it good.

By: t r a c y

t r a c y — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:40:33 -0800

i wonder if tinker's been neutered and if not will his progeny inherit...? ernest hemingway provided for his favourite tom cat in that way. left the kitty a huge spanish estate and loads of cash. the original tom cat is long since dead but the house is occupied by it's blood relatives and a house/catkeeper. they keep one male and one female un-neutered so the line goes on and on.

By: biffa

biffa — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:43:30 -0800

gee, pretty_generic, maybe you should try befriending wealthy old people... Yeah, all you have to do is climb into a strange old persons garden, miaow plaintively and not mind the smell of wee and you could be minted.

By: Officeslacker

Officeslacker — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:47:09 -0800

Xmutex - Do you mean this Toonces?

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:55:03 -0800

I'm with Tracy...my will stipulates that my son, my cats, and my dog have a trust that will allow whomever takes care of them to not have to assume a financial burden to do so. It's really only common sense to provide for those that you care about.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:57:03 -0800

Well, absolutely. You give the money to the person, to look after the cat. You don't give the money to the cat, thus endangering the wellbeing of the cat.

By: ElvisJesus

ElvisJesus — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:57:38 -0800

gee, pretty_generic, maybe you should try befriending wealthy old people...it sure paid off for the cat. Not to mention Anna Nicole .... apparently it pays off for obtuse cows as well

By: linux

linux — Tue, 06 May 2003 09:59:34 -0800

Toonces lived seven years in the wild as a declawed cat!? That alone is impressive.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 06 May 2003 10:13:43 -0800

It's always weird to me how so many people will help out stray animals, but not stray people.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Tue, 06 May 2003 10:14:44 -0800

Yes, well, I don't see this as a humorous, quirky story about love for animals. This lady has some fucked-up priorities, or else she just happened to forget all the people who are starving to death around the world every day.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Tue, 06 May 2003 10:15:38 -0800

You give the money to the person, to look after the cat. Unless you want to throw off suspicion. Having the will going to the cat which then goes to the neighbor. How do we know this will was done by Margaret Layne. Who was her caretaker, her neighbor? Why I keep questioning the neighbor; The sum of £100,000 was left in a trust fund to Mrs Layne's former neighbours, Ann and Eugene Wheatley, so they could maintain the house and look after Tinker. Mr Wheatley, 75, said the couple's own two cats had chosen to move in with their wealthy friend. "He has the run of the house, which he now shares with Lucy, who was our pussy but decided to move there after she had a litter. Thought the house belonged to Tinker. Talk about moving in slowly, first your pussy, then...

By: zarah

zarah — Tue, 06 May 2003 10:32:20 -0800

ernest hemingway provided for his favourite tom cat hemingway's cats It's always weird to me how so many people will help out stray animals, but not stray people. All the folks I know who donate their time and money to the SPCA and local shelters do the same for people's organizations. My mom and her friends give almost all their spare time/cash to both animal shelters and things like the local food bank, share the warmth, and arts programs for underprivileged youths. I tend to judge people (especially men) by their compassion for animals as it's a good indication that they're decent to people as well.

By: jonson

jonson — Tue, 06 May 2003 10:32:33 -0800

By: kindall

kindall — Tue, 06 May 2003 10:34:48 -0800

This lady has some fucked-up priorities, or else she just happened to forget all the people who are starving to death around the world every day. Yeah, because it's perfectly natural to care more about people you've never met than your companion of several years (even if it is an animal).

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Tue, 06 May 2003 10:40:21 -0800

zarah - to me it's simple: I have a £10 I don't want to spend on myself... I could use that to keep an animal warm, or I could use it to keep a human alive. I never give money to animal or environmental charities, when I could be using that money for delaying the certain death of innocent people. I don't think that makes me less morally decent.

By: lisa g

lisa g — Tue, 06 May 2003 10:53:12 -0800

The article notes that the woman's estate was worth £585,912, including the £350,000 house and the £100,000 fund for Tinker. That leaves £135,912 -- still a huge chunk of change -- that she very well may have given to various human-related charities. Considering she had no descendents, that might be likely. The article just doesn't say.

By: zarah

zarah — Tue, 06 May 2003 11:03:56 -0800

I don't think that makes me less morally decent. I said compassion for animals is a good indication that a person is also decent to humans. Nowhere did I say it was the only indication. However I was speaking personally and as such yah, a person who cares less for animals and the enviro would be struck off my list as a potential s/o or best friend. (This is not meant as a dig at you Pretty_G, I'm just stating it as part of the conversation.) As for environmental charities, what good is it to give your money only to people if there's no clean air for them to breath or clean water for them to drink?

By: Hildago

Hildago — Tue, 06 May 2003 11:14:04 -0800

Hildago - what if she had left the money to a single person, instead of to a single cat. How would that help 'all the people who are starving to death around the world every day"? Would it still irritate you? Well, everything irritates me, jonson, but I think it would be a better idea to give it to a person than to a cat, because there's at least a chance that the person would do something worthwhile with it. That's why we donate to charities, I guess, and not to cows and such. It's sort of a monetary dead-end. Yeah, because it's perfectly natural to care more about people you've never met than your companion of several years (even if it is an animal). I think there's nothing more unnatural than giving a cat a hundred times more money than it would ever need to live out the rest of its life, essentially throwing that money away, and meanwhile any number of little kids somewhere who would have really appreciated it if she'd been maybe a little less generous to an animal that has no concept of money anyway. It would have been fine, I suppose, not to give the money to charity but instead even to a random person on the street, it's just the complete waste of money justified by a flighty anthropomorphism that gets me. I don't care what the old lady thinks, the cat doesn't need its own house. I wouldn't try to take the money away from the damned cat, it's just that it's a real tragedy when you think of the wasted potential.

By: Mars Saxman

Mars Saxman — Tue, 06 May 2003 11:20:10 -0800

I could use that to keep an animal warm, or I could use it to keep a human alive. Humans are animals too. Sure, it's natural to prefer your own kind above others, but that doesn't stand up too well as an ethical principle.

By: Shane

Shane — Tue, 06 May 2003 11:40:08 -0800

...I think it would be a better idea to give it to a person than to a cat, because there's at least a chance that the person would do something worthwhile with it. That's thin ice, as you are judging organisms by what they do, not by intrinsic worth and goodness. What does humanity do that is "worthwhile" for anything but humanity? Nearly everything humanity does is selfish and at the expense of animals and the environment and even the exploited human populations of the world. What is noble, good or deserving about that? What the heck is the definition of "worthwhile," anyway? What makes you "deserve" the life you live, what is your "entitlement"? It's best just not to go there. And besides, it really looks silly for Metafilter to escalate a thread about an eccentric old cat-loving woman into an excuse for an argument. I mean, really! Hold out for the next political thread...

By: Hildago

Hildago — Tue, 06 May 2003 11:42:56 -0800

Humans are animals too. Sure, it's natural to prefer your own kind above others, but that doesn't stand up too well as an ethical principle. What about if the problems humans have are more easily solved by money, and the problems other animals have are more easily solved by humans having money (I've rescued from injury or abuse two ducks, a robin, two cats and a dog in my life, and a major factor in my ability to do this was that I didn't starve to death as a baby)? Or if it's a question of a cat living in luxury or a human living at all? Or if you happen to be a Christian, which this lady statistically probably was?

By: Hildago

Hildago — Tue, 06 May 2003 11:47:17 -0800

That's thin ice, as you are judging organisms by what they do, not by intrinsic worth and goodness... It's best just not to go there. I'm not judging organisms, I'm judging this particular stupid old lady for giving her pet cat 100,000 british pounds. Tell me, do you personally think this was a better use of the money than giving it to charity or not?

By: Shane

Shane — Tue, 06 May 2003 11:52:52 -0800

Tell me, do you personally think this was a better use of the money than giving it to charity or not? I think the sum of about $150,000 was eccentric, and so was she. I don't think anyone is arguing with that. Heck, I would have treated Tinker like a king for his livelong days for a mere $999.99. (Probably much less, but why not drive a hard bargain? I'm "worth it", after all.)

By: linux

linux — Tue, 06 May 2003 11:54:16 -0800

It's her money. She does what she wants with it. You have a right to think she's stupid. But in the end, it's her money. You just go ahead and contribute your own resources to helping the poor instead of yelling at a dead woman. And if you already are contributing, well good for you -- now stop yelling.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Tue, 06 May 2003 12:04:31 -0800

I think the sum of about $150,000 was eccentric, and so was she. I don't think anyone is arguing with that. I got the distinct impression that some people were, though. Like, saying that no matter how the money was spent, it's about the same in the end. If she loved her cat, she might as well give it a lot of money it doesn't need. Which I disagree with both on principle and because it is totally insane. What's ironic is that I agree with Peter Singer in general, it's just that in this particular case it seems like she gave the cat far more than was necessary, while ignoring others that could have used it.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Tue, 06 May 2003 12:12:35 -0800

It's her money. She does what she wants with it. You have a right to think she's stupid. But in the end, it's her money. This is what I've been saying. You just go ahead and contribute your own resources to helping the poor instead of yelling at a dead woman. And if you already are contributing, well good for you -- now stop yelling. Who's yelling? And you just go ahead and keep up that sanctimonious condescension if it's what works for you. Your comments on Toonces the Cat earlier in the thread were appreciated, but I don't recall electing a hall monitor.

By: zarah

zarah — Tue, 06 May 2003 12:19:39 -0800

hey yah, no one's been yelling. unless i've gone deaf from hanging around in other types of threads :D

By: linux

linux — Tue, 06 May 2003 14:52:27 -0800

sanctimonious condescension Big words. Me look up. Wow. Touchy.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Tue, 06 May 2003 15:27:47 -0800

Ultimately if you're a cat lover you'll go "awww" and if you're a dog lover you'll look into the conspiracy theories of how the neighbors could swindle the cat out of all that loot. Personally, I see the premise for a Disney movie in all this. Think Benji with cats.

By: Pseudoephedrine

Pseudoephedrine — Tue, 06 May 2003 18:00:24 -0800

Sure, it's natural to prefer your own kind above others, but that doesn't stand up too well as an ethical principle. It sure does so long as we aren't attempting to dehumanise ethics by ignoring human psychology. Ethics is the search for the "best" life, which is usually presented in the form of the search for happiness (though not exclusively so; At the same time, it certainly is presented as being such in the ethical tradition that argues for deontological positions, whether towards animals or one's fellow humans). Since happiness is a psychological state, dehumanising it doesn't make sense, and therefore, since tribalism and parochialism are human qualities they may be necessary for happiness, and therefore, are wholly defensible as ethical principles.

By: Shane

Shane — Tue, 06 May 2003 18:58:27 -0800

Ethics is the search for the "best" life, which is usually presented in the form of the search for happiness... Look at that! A philosophy student familiar with Nicomachean Ethics. No offense, but the Philosophy of Ethics has a distinct tendency to wank and wank for pages without realizing it might be a "good" idea to define things like "good" and "goodness" as a starting point. I'm not snarking, I just get lost in the excitement of all the rhetoric. Heck, may as well skip straight to good ol' practical Hobbes, whose Social Contract makes a case for "good" behavior that even the lowest denominator "amoral" person can understand (as in, Life gets all nasty and brutish otherwise.) My $.02: Goodness is in the heart and gets lost in attempts at definitions (sort of like the Tao.) *realizes, horror of horrors, that he might incite a philosophical discussion; runs away screaming*

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Wed, 07 May 2003 00:24:12 -0800

Price of Changing Will: $100.00 Paying for your nearest and dearest to come to the reading of that Will: $573.00 The look on their faces when they discover you've given your fortune away to a cat called Mr Tiddles: Priceless.