Yes, a post that attacks kids is one that seems ripe to be critical about. (To say nothing about the implicit logic that their kids must also have been part of the problem, which goes against the general premise of the comment)
I assume you only read a few messages here, stopped and decided to attack that one.
Surely there were other messages here less deserving of charity?
If you would like to point out a few comments that are hurling blame at children, I'm more than happy to offer my opinion on those as well.
But this became when the discussion continued "hurling blame on children." Which is presented as text not subtext?
And something about implicit logic?
You sure put a lot of work into deciding why that of all comments deserved ire.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that kids with a great home life _probably_ have parents or grandparents that advocate for them and really try to get them placed into a good school district.
One could argue that getting your child into a good school district is an indirect way of surrounding them with like-minded kids and parental influence.
My premise is that there's underlying causes unmentioned, but implied (like socioeconomic status). You can separate groups from membership, and to oversimplify, if you move something from one side of an equation to the other, with different results, what you moved was truly the constant, and what was left behind was the variable.
specifically, I think the original comment was in poor taste, and there are other factors outside of good home life like you said.