> I don't think that's particularly charitable,

As a direct reply to the challenge that the original poster made:

> > Why do we find it acceptable to help people who struggle with alcohol abuse, or nicotine addiction, or opioid addiction, but not to help people who struggle with food abuse?

They said nah, you were unlucky. In other words just dismiss his point outright.

Is that still uncharitable? Then so be it.

> GGP said themselves that their issue is volume, that they're doing well in many other ways.

Yes they said that they have a food addiction.

- The alcoholic said that his problem is the volume of alcohol intake

- The smoker said that…

Then asked why we won’t help food addicts. Just waffle on about self-discipline or hint at it.

This question is still yet to be answered.

> GP is saying if everyone could do what they've done, many fewer would have the problem, and so maybe it would have less stigma.

Maybe if those people had more self-discipline. Then maybe there would be less of a stigma.

You’re using the rationalized stigma to explain the stigma. This is at best circular.

Maybe we would respect ex-smokers more if they had the discpline to not ingest nicotine gum.