The thing is then why even offer the $500 reward if it was going to be something that they couldn’t spare? To me that seems more douchey than someone asking for the reward, because the money was offered in the first place. Sure they didn’t have to take it but that’s entirely up to them if they want to decline it or not. Additionally they could’ve offered less money, something like $100.
6 Likes
Then don’t offer the reward to begin with? To me it seems that compelling people to action with money, and then expecting them to not take it is the problem. Not people accepting it.
4 Likes
Agreed! This reward poster scenario is a classic breach-of-contract example, but it also reminds me of wage theft cases. “You want time-and-a-half for working overtime? You greedy bastard! You want to be paid when I require you to clock in 30 minutes early? Asshole!”
Or to use a different kind of common example, “You want to be paid the agreed amount for designing my logo (or photographing my wedding)?! Asshole!”
Just as with those other contracts, this falls under the “fuck you—pay me” philosophy. Insist on what you’re owed. Don’t get taken advantage of. Fuck people who don’t pay what they promised to pay.
7 Likes
awesome, an off-topic Trump reference AND an ethnic slur
1 Like
Thanks @anon87143080, you are of course 100% correct, that’s a d’oh moment for sure! Feels like a good case of “comment withdrawn by user” but think I’ll leave it, own the embarrassment 
1 Like
Sadly there a 1000 guys just like him. I wonder which one we’ll make the next President.
Off topic?? How?
If you don’t like the term welcher, how about chiseler? Liar? Deceiver? Or similar synonym??
Also, Trump is famous or better infamous for his refusal to pay people/companies that perform and/or complete work and/or services for him. So too are his kids, son-in-law and many others in the Impotus-o-sphere.
That’s the apple calling an apple an apple.
You won’t find the letters T-R-U-M-P in Frauenfelder’s article, nor in the source material at Reddit
If somebody was changing the subject to Obama or the Clintons in a topic about lost cats maybe you’d see the problem
1 Like
See, this is where I was stuck. The people needed to offer the reward in the first place. I feel like I need a flowchart here but I’m too lazy to draw a proper one.
Here’s how this is supposed to work:
- Cat is returned, social custom demands recipients offer reward
- Reward is offered, social custom says the cat returner should decline (perhaps unless there a very significant wealth disparity)
But step 2 didn’t happen so the whole thing broke down.
- Cat is returned, social custom demands recipients offer reward
- Reward is not offered. cat returner has been slighted
- We’re now in a quagmire, cat returner has to either accept being slighted or observe the slight, they chose to observe the slight
- Recipients grudgingly carry out (well, fail to carry out since they only paid part) their social duty (and, probably, legal obligation)
I’d argue that at that point the cat returner would be more of an asshole for refusing the reward than for taking it. If you are the one who reminded them of the reward then turning it down would turn the whole thing into some bullshit power move.
So it really comes down to whether the cat returner was right to take note of the slight. Generally I’m against remarking on other people’s “rudeness” (if I can call it that). Like if someone holds a door open for you and you walk through it and aggressively say “You’re welcome” then they are being an asshole. Sure, maybe you should have said “thank you” but they are aggressively taking offense at a minor oversight.
But when we’re talking about a $500 reward from someone who did something really nice for you the dynamic is different. The person who doesn’t offer the reward isn’t just being impolite to the person who returned the cat, they are intentionally* abusing the system of social niceties to enrich themselves (I say intentionally because while a stranger may be distracted and absent-mindedly miss a “thank you”, the reaction of the people to the ask of the reward seems like they had no intention to pay it).
If the failure to offer the reward was absent minded then the cat returner would have been creating a very awkward situation by asking for it, since that would have put them in the bizarre position of both having to take and to turn down the reward to avoid being an asshole. But none of us really knows the full extent of how our own brains work. Maybe the cat returner could tell by the way the people were acting that they were intentionally trying to duck out of the reward. I feel inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt because it really seems like if they did think that, they were right.
But enacting vigilante justice (in the form of demanding a reward) from people who are intentionally abusing the spirit of the community is the kind of dick move that we are socially okay cheering for.
2 Likes
Cat can’t be “returned” unless the findr has some way of knowing who the owner is. Now, said cat may be chipped but may be not.
Cat owners chose to post notice of lost cat. I’ve seen hundreds of such flyers over the years. Cat owners also chose, voluntarily to included offer of reward on notice. Of the noticed I’ve seen, some offer a reward others don’t.
So, when said cat is returned to owners, owners should reward finder (who was nice enough to also return said cat) with the sum the owners declared they’d pay.
Are you truly this unaware of the function of analogies?
Cat owners reneged on promise of payment for services rendered exactly like the Impotus has done time and again.
The function of the analogy is to demonstrate - by use of example - that the cat owners are manipulative d-bags just like someone else who regularly fails/refuses to live-up to the promises he makes.
1 Like
Huh. I’ve never heard that one before.
I’ve returned lost pets before. Heck, when I was in high school I saved an injured cat from walking into traffic, then returned it. I never asked for a reward or looked for a reward poster. But if I’d seen one, and a reward was offered, I’d have accepted the reward.
5 Likes
Um - I gave him the dogs, refused the money. I was out like two cups of dog food.
3 Likes
It seems like, “Oh, don’t be silly, I’m just glad you got your cat back” is the thing that some people think you are supposed to say. Let’s say I was putting that in for the sake of argument.
I imagine this is what had the parents of the original posters unhappy.
But for me, I basically always insist on refusing the framing of any problem given to me. So while others haggle out their genuine feelings over whether you ought to accept or turn down a reward for returning a pet or not ( probably would turn down the reward, but I totally back those who would take it), I’m focusing on the apparent bad behaviour of the people who offered the reward and how it created the situation.
3 Likes
I’ve never heard of such a custom. And if it is a custom some places, it’s a bad one.
The reward was offered on the poster, by an affluent family. No one forced them to specify a reward, they decided to do so themselves. And they set the amount. So it should be paid. Asking for it was just holding a weasel to his word - he promised something he didn’t want to deliver.
What I do with the reward money is another matter. If I myself was skint, I’d spend it on rent or food. If not, I’d give it to the local Food Bank organization, or change it into $1 bills and hand it out to spare-changers. What you do with reward money is your own business, and you can spend it on whatever you want, guilt-free.
2 Likes
Oh! Yeah: but I see costs covered is different than reward. “Hey your cat was hanging out in my back yard, neighbor… $500 smackers! Ka-CHING!” = asshole, but “We found this cat, and the microchip says it came from 1,400 miles away! We are gonna courier it back too you” = awesome, and costs should be defrayed.
1 Like
You return a lost pet because you have empathy and (absent pet abuse/neglect) it is the right thing to do, not because it is a business model.
1 Like
These kinds of posts have a way of surfacing a lot of really sanctimonious opinions. People just fall over themselves to show everyone how virtuous they are.
Lexicat, do you find anyone who posts a reward for a lost pet to be an asshole too? Or just people who would dare claim that reward?
2 Likes
The cat owners already opened that door by offering a reward, so the business model is already in existence. The onus is on them.
6 Likes
Whoa, hey, maybe dial it back a bit? Just because you disagree with @Lexicat’s take doesn’t make it sanctimonious.
4 Likes
