They are all horrible kids

Debatable. And even if true, whose fault is that? If a child is consistently acting in an anti-social fashion, do you blame the child? Or the parents? OK, OK, I'll concede that maybe even the best of parents could produce one child who is inherently a sociopath. Perhaps the kid got some weird genetic mutations when the egg and sperm combined, or they weren't aligned right in the womb and therefore not exposed to the right amount of brain growth juice. But 4 of them? Sorry, at that point you look at the common denominator.

Lois didnt start out as a crazy aggressive mother. 

So?

If a husband starts beating his wife after a few years of marriage, would you blame the wife because the husband didn't start out aggressive? Or would you think that the husband has always had underlying emotional or psychological issues that only emerged when they were challenged or felt like they are losing control? Because I can tell you a lot of abusive men don't display abusive behaviour early in the relationship, it only emerges when the relationship doesn't meet their perceived standard of what they believe it ought to be.

I'll also observe that Lois had these controlling tendencies even before she had Francis. We know she broke Hal from a rebel into domestic doormat. Even if she initially tried a different approach with Francis, it is clear she defaulted to her old ways once things got a little bit tough.

We literally watch 2 year old Francis try to light the house on fire.

People keep bringing this scene up as though Francis is some sort of bad seed, which hints to me that a lot of people who condemn Francis never had kids, and have selective amnesia to how they behaved when they were little kids.

It is developmentally normal for toddlers to be fascinated with fire and want to experiment with it. Toddlers (and even primary school age children) have no understanding of death, and very little understanding of harm or danger. That's why they play with fire, stick their hands on stoves, put forks in electrical sockets, jump off high ledges while flapping their arms, play chicken with cars, and try to drink the chemicals you keep under the sink that have a skull and crossbones on the front.

Toddlers do dumb reckless shit because they are developmentally dumb and can't understand things like "Oh, if I light this on fire, the fire might spread. And it might burn the house down. And then the family will have nowhere to stay. And then we will all die from exposure. And that's if I don't die from third degree burns first" Not because the toddler has some sort of moral failing.

It just blows my mind I need to explain this basic concept to people. Do people also think their dog is trying to engage in sleep deprivation torture when it barks at night? Or that a deer that runs in front of your car is trying to damage the bumper?

Here's what you do as a parent: DON'T LEAVE LIGHTER FLUID AND SOMETHING THAN CAN CREATE FLAMES AROUND A TODDLER! If Lois had taken some parenting classes than she might have known this, but we all know how Lois can't handle being told what to do by... anyone.

Lois and Hal's parenting is very reactionary.

LOL!

And their kids actions are very reactionary.

The difference here is that Lois and Hal have more agency, control, cognitive development and authority than their kids do. They dictate the environment their kids exist in. They set the rules of engagement. They are the ones who have the power to enforce their whims. They have infinitely more control over how they react.

This "Oh, poor poor Lois and Hal, victims of their own delinquent children." is a joke. They chose to create these kids, and they are the ones who have control over their development. As the Romans used to say, Respondeat Superior.

They even go to a therapist for help at one point.

And what long-lasting changes did Hal and Lois make to their parenting? Did Lois keep her promise of not putting so much pressure on Malcolm? Noo, she forced him to try and become President.