'Some' versus 'all'

Let's not generalize, I admit I've seen a lot of stupid posts on there, but some aren't as ridiculous, and often even the people who make silly posts make sense from time to time too.

I've never heard this 'our children' thing. So I'm thinking it's rarer and more isolated than you're painting it. In a wider sense, I don't exactly see the problem with it. Our government, in a sense 'we' since it represents us, steps in to care for children who need help, who are being abused and neglected. They are educated, fed, sheltered, protected. So in a sense, yes, 'our' children. Society will adopt those who need it.

Why is that bad? Is the idea of 'it has my genes so it is mine, others wanting to care for it makes no sense' really so good, or is that actually the primitive view? That's the view, in my mind, that leads to abusive and objectifying scenarios more than anything.

It is not socialism to do this, because it is temporary until people can protect themselves. The only problem in this case is how that state is assessed, assessing it individually on merit would be better than saying it happens at a given time, but that's a logistics problem not ignoring that it is just not socialism due to that.

I don't know enough about collectivism to refute that accusation but from what I've heard of it in limited occasion before it also sounds wrong. These words are usually applied to extremism, and I do not think looking out for children regardless of relation to them is extreme, I think it's quite a moral thing to be doing.

This just seems like snipey 'gotcha' journalism, I'd expect better, there are better things to criticize AZ about, like jumping to conclusions or making inaccurate statements in certain posts or something. This kind of broad generalizing sort of put-down really just makes the attacker look bad.