Demeaning to cancer patients? Huh. I thought I was writing out a really incredibly obviously clear instance of "if a thing is bad, you cannot criticize it unless you provide an alternative - if you cannot provide a better option, then the thing must not be bad". I didn't realize I needed to scaffold this so much for people to actually focus on the logic being criticized and not get hung up on "but this thing isn't bad!?@!??!" How would you have presented it? Or, do you think it's not actually possible in this context to explain why that construction is illogical without upsetting people who like the school?

Anyone who is committed to serious enquiry and good-faith discussion understands that there is a very large class of things that might seem bad at first glance, but turn out not to be so bad, or indeed quite good, when compared against the available alternatives.

This class of things includes pretty much anything that's really important in the world - including economic systems, government policies, human behaviours, and, yes, companies, including ones that offer deferred payment for education that can lead to higher incomes and better standards of living for the customer.

You're clearly intelligent enough to know this but are poisoning the debate by making a comparison with something that is horrible but not at all comparable.

What the hell. Obviously I know that many things are maybe not bad. That's why I picked an example where people would not argue about whether it was bad in order to demonstrate the logical point.

It is clear that I not only didn't get my point across but that people don't even believe that the point existed, and I miscommunicated so badly that you're not even willing to believe that I was ever arguing in good faith. Fuck this.