kegstore said:
Useless Pretty Boy said:
I don't really see anything I said that was out of line.
And that my friend is precisely the problem here.
Well then feel free to point out exactly what I said that was 'out of line'. If need be, explain it to me with small words and visual aides.
You might not agree with my view, but that doesn't make it any less valid unless you can deconstruct it to show exactly why it's invalid. My argument for a greater distinction rests on a simple fact: Type 1 is deadly without medication, Type 2 isn't.
I know a lot of type 2s feel that their condition isn't taken as seriously as type 1 and that's probably true. But I really don't see a reason that it should be. Type 2 is slow-onset, doesn't inherintly require medication to survive and is very often self-inflicted due to bad diet and lifestyle. Type 1 is fast-onset, requires medication and is due to either genetics, environment or a combination.
Some people here may find it an uncomfortable pill to swallow, but type 2 is simply a less dangerous and a far less sympathetic disease. Perhaps it's because of this less sympathetic nature of it that it usually seems to be the type 2s on this board who are crying out for more sympathy. Whether it's deserved or not is an entirely different topic.
As it stands, I don't see how I've been 'bleating' about the difference. I've made, what, two posts in this thread about it? In a thread in which the basic topic of conversation is about whether or not there is a great enough difference between the two different diseases to justify giving them more different names.
I'd say there is. What's wrong with that?