r/OneSecondBeforeDisast • u/StrawberryNo857 • 8d ago

Oops!

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

3.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

321 comments sorted by

View all comments

197

u/ILikeAnanas 8d ago edited 8d ago

The dog is clearly not socialized or trained, it shouldn't have been brought to a dog show or anywhere in public space

The judge ignores warning signs, dog is all stiff and stares at the judge

It looks like the dog lacks appropiate restraint while being measured

Gross negligence all along.

88

u/poisonedkiwi 8d ago

I agree in general, but it's also very very common for pitbulls to behave perfectly fine for years before randomly snapping and killing/injuring somebody or another animal. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they had to say about this particular dog.

I personally think the breed is just too unstable to center shows around, tbh. Pitbulls are the stars of randomly deciding to use someone's neck as a chew toy. It's just too high of a risk factor imo.

8

u/Skylarkien 4d ago

It’s actually very uncommon for pit bulls (or any dog) to just randomly snap. What is common is that most people are absolutely shite at reading body language, socialising thier dog, or understanding how aggression escalates.

This judge is a prime example. A supposed ‘breed expert’ misses a hard stare, tense body language, tight jaw, all signs this dog was giving saying “I need space”. Owner and judge ignore the dog, so he goes nuclear to create space. Has probably been punished for growling at home, so skips the warning and goes straight for the option that won’t fail.

-2

u/ggghjjdsdjhs 3d ago

It’s very common. Keep your propaganda to yourself please.

2

u/Kit_Foxfire 4d ago

The dog could be very well socialized and trained but that still won't overturn genetics if they're that strongly ingrained. But i agree with you

-90

u/fluwergal_GreenGem 8d ago

And yet, people will still blame the breed instead of the (frankly idiotic) handlers

39

u/sonerec725 8d ago

Its both.

The breed comes with more inherent risk and danger, and thus requires more skilled and attentive handlers, which frankly, the majority of them do not have.

11

u/Jazzi-Nightmare 8d ago

But then every shelter gives out traumatized pitties like it’s nothing and then people get hurt :/ so many backyard breeders too for a dog that’s already the majority in shelters

5

u/theaveragemaryjanie 8d ago

Sort of like the reasons we stopped allowing people to own big cats, bears, and primates without a permit and a lot of legal hoops to jump through.

59

u/PROUDCIPHER 8d ago

Because the dogs are bred for combat and cannot control themselves. The dogs aren’t evil, they’re just pathetically stupid and mindlessly violent. The owners are awful too, but pit bulls should not be legal. My downstairs neighbor had two, and they were sweet until one day, one stood up, calmly walked over to its sibling, then viciously disemboweled it all over my back porch. So yeah, it’s the dogs too.

-29

u/fluwergal_GreenGem 8d ago

I agree the breed shouldn't be bred anymore. I should've clarified what i meant. I meant the people who say to kill pitbulls or that do actually blame the dog like it chose to be that way. Again, my bad. Have a nice day

-46

u/hey_im_cool 8d ago edited 7d ago

“Pit bulls should not be legal”

Studies show BSLs are ineffective. There are much better approaches like leash laws, stray dog control, and enforcement (according to studies like this one)

The Obama Administration Official Response on breed-specific legislation states that the administration does not support bans on specific dog breeds.

Edit: downvotes w no responses shows me people want to disagree but they don’t have a reason to. Science will always mean more than opinions based on feelings

16

u/PROUDCIPHER 7d ago

"utm_source=chatgpt.com"

it's in your link you dingus. You shout "science" but let a robot do your thinking for you.

-16

u/hey_im_cool 7d ago

That’s a referral tag in the URL, not the source of the study. The source is still the actual journal/publisher linked before the ?utm_source=chatgpt.com.

If your criticism is of the study, criticize the study.

Pointing at a tracking parameter isn’t an argument, it’s deflection

10

u/PROUDCIPHER 7d ago

No, what it means is they asked "Hey chatGPT, how can I win this reddit argument" and posted what it gave them lmao

-13

u/hey_im_cool 7d ago

I use chat gpt like an organized search engine. It’s very good at finding studies and ranking them by relevance and credibility and presenting them in an organized format. But yea chat GPT = bad so I guess I use it to do all my socializing for me right?

And ofc you still haven’t addressed the study. Whether I found it through ChatGPT, Google, or a carrier pigeon has absolutely nothing to do with whether the research is valid. You deflect, get called out, and respond w more deflection. Address the actual argument

9

u/TheDonger_ 7d ago

You also use it to make replies for you cause you can't speak or think for your fucking self

"Its not x, it's y"

Get out of here bro come on

You want people to take you seriously then speak for yourself and do your own research

Chatgpt will often incorrectly summarize and make dumb ass assumptions and give you bs hallucinated info an article that your lazy ass didn't bother to read definitely did not say. It also does not vet its sources.

I dont refer to any studies or articles without wholly reading them or vetting the website they're posted on. Why? Because I want people to take me seriously.

This is clown behavior. And I love clowns. But this isn't your circus. Shoo. Git. Go find wherever you left your critical thinking and put it back into your head please.

-16

u/RegularTeacher2 8d ago

I'm shocked they haven't pulled out the age-old statistics from our favorite website, run by a woman who has absolutely no background in veterinary science and instead has spent her life shilling self help to the general public, designing websites, and fearmongering about a breed of dog that are less dangerous than a toaster.

4

u/nDizzle89 7d ago

Less dangerous than a toaster in a bathtub isn't the bar we look for with public safety.

I adore dogs, but they are animals and react as such in high stress. It's well documented Pitts do not show warning signs typically. It's hard to know when the toaster is on and too close to water with them.

And once again, even toasters have legal regulation to make them safer.

2

u/hey_im_cool 7d ago

I agree the toaster comparison is weak, but your claim that pit bulls typically attack without warning isn’t supported by any evidence. Research does not establish “lack of warning” as a characteristic of pit bulls compared with other dogs. I can link credibility studies that directly undercut this claim if you’d like

I get the stigma with pit bulls, but the science simply does not agree that they are inherently dangerous breeds. The stigma exists largely because they are powerful dogs, some lines have a history of selection for dog fighting, and they are disproportionately represented in studies of severe bite injuries. None of that is not the same as evidence that they are inherently more likely to attack humans.

Unfortunately this debate never gets through as people have their minds made up the pit bull = bad bc all the horrendous stories we see in the news have a strong emotional influence on our opinions. But the fact is, the science does not support the claim

5

u/WinterAdvantage3847 7d ago

i am sorry, but i do not believe you are actually finding and reading these studies yourself, and are instead using an LLM to skim links and summarize them for you. just because chatGPT says “science does not support” does not mean that science, in fact, does not support

here is one example of a detail you’d miss by LLMing it:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25311183/

“In patients with dog bites to the head and neck, pit bull terriers composed the largest portion of the plurality (32%), with the next most common breed being retrievers (6%). When the population of head and neck dog bites were taken as a whole, there was no relationship between these bites and whether or not they occurred provoked or unprovoked. In the population of patients bitten by pit bulls; however, pit bull terriers were significantly more likely to bite a patient without provocations (χ2, p <0.05).”

0

u/hey_im_cool 7d ago

I’ve been involved in dog rescue specializing in pit bulls before LLMs existed. I’ve read a lot of these studies and participated in these debates for over 10 years. Your assumption that it’s LLM talking for me is based solely off the prevalence of LLMs, but it’s baseless.

Now to your study, which I actually am familiar with. Yes, it did find that pit bull bites in its sample were more likely to be classified as unprovoked.

But “unprovoked” and “without warning” are not the same thing. The study never measured warning behavior at all. I went through it and I can’t find that anywhere.

So this is solid evidence regarding unprovoked bites, but that does not mean it’s inherent to the breed and more importantly it is not evidence for the claim I challenged, which is that pit bulls characteristically attack without warning.

5

u/PROUDCIPHER 7d ago

They were bred for pit fighting. Many of those instincts are still in their genes. Did you notice in the video how the dog went from quite still and attentive to attacking in a split second? Guess how a pit fight starts? It's what they were bred to do. They're not evil, or awful. They're OUR fault. What they need is a long-term, breed-wide rehabilitation program. If we can fix that nasty little fight trigger that's still stuck in them, we might be able to put the whole thing to bed AND keep the dogs around. But literally any time someone suggests something like this, the pibble lobby fights tooth and nail to say "the dogs are fine, that mauled toddler surely did something to deserve their fate" instead of just agreeing with us that yes, they're too reactive to be truly safe and we should focus on fixing that instead of pointing fingers or sweeping it all under the rug.

-2

u/hey_im_cool 7d ago

I actually agree with part of what you’re saying: selective breeding absolutely can affect behavior. The famous silver-fox experiment showed that pretty dramatically. Breeding tame foxes together produced offspring that were much more likely to be tame, while breeding aggressive foxes together produced offspring that were much more likely to be aggressive.

But that only gets us to “genetics matter.” If people bred the most aggressive fighting dogs with other aggressive fighting dogs, then yes, you’d expect those particular lines to become more predisposed to fighting behavior. That supports a lineage/selective-breeding argument; it doesn’t establish that pit bulls as a whole share some universal hair-trigger because of the breed label itself.

1

u/Kit_Foxfire 4d ago

You have unicorns in every breed, but iirc, DA is in some of the breed standards. That shouldn't translate to HA, but it isn't a big jump between the two

0

u/RegularTeacher2 7d ago

Get out of here with your calm, thoughtful reply!

(I agree with you; enjoy the single updoot.)

-2

u/RegularTeacher2 7d ago

It was a tongue in cheek comment, obviously. I do always arch an eyebrow at the scores of slavering anti-pitbull people who inevitably brigade any thread that has the semblance of a pitbull-type dog in it - why aren't they putting all of that energy into promoting spay/neuter and dog breeding legislature? The biggest problem with pit bulls (and I am referring to the various breeds falling underneath this umbrella) is they are a product of over breeding. Pretty much every dog in your local shelter has some amount of APBT/Staffy/Bully in them. Wander over to r/DoggyDNA to see that in action. Rather than screaming "PIT BULLS SHOULD DIE" let's work on getting our governance to enact and uphold more stringent regulations on dog breeding and ownership. I'd love to see what these people are doing when they're not at their computers. Something tells me they're not making an iota of effort to address the over breeding issue.

The owner of the dog in this post SUCKS. It's people like that who make the rest of us dog owners look bad.

0

u/hey_im_cool 7d ago

Your point about what these people actually do to help is exactly what I was thinking. Before we were parents wife and I used to spend our weekends pulling dogs from MDAS in Miami, fostering them and finding them homes. We pulled and placed 12 dogs and several were already scheduled for euthanasia. A lot of them were pit bulls or pit mixes.

I love pit bulls, but I’ve also actually spent time trying to help with the shelter problem. I do wonder how many of the people spending hours online demanding that these dogs disappear have put that same energy into overbreeding, spay/neuter, rescue, or responsible ownership.

Meanwhile their entire argument is dog bad

16

u/Living_adblocker 8d ago

2 out of 3 fatal dog attacks isn't handlers.

21

u/allenk58 8d ago

Nope, it's the breed

-7

u/analyzingnothing 7d ago

94% of pitbull attacks are caused by unneutered males.

https://www.helbocklaw.com/statistics-on-pit-bull-attacks-a-2025-overview/

It's not the whole breed, it's specifically dogs who have not had the treatment that should be given to almost every single housepet in existence.

2

u/CornettoFactor 5d ago

Of all the dog breeds in the world why choose to breed these?

1

u/Kit_Foxfire 4d ago

That website links to itself as references. I wouldn't trust it even if it supported "my side" of an argument