Because childrens' REAL beliefs are important... as long as we make their beliefs for them

At a certain age children only do and believe what they are told to do and believe by adults. Unless one believes that the teenagers on the news have been conditioned/indoctrinated since their formative years to believe those things, I wouldn't call it "parroting." However, seeing as how kindergartners through sixth graders are being used as pawns to push an agenda now, why wouldn't I think that those teenagers have been taught to believe what they believe since their formative years?

Those beliefs tend to stay with them throughout adolescence and into their teenage years. We could call them "their beliefs" now which they may hold to dearly at that this age.

The media that showcase those Parkland students every day know that what those students say is what the students believe and as long as it fits the narrative that the media wants the media will showcase them.

"At a certain age children only do and believe what they are told to do and believe by adults."

Hence the majority of conservative Christians. Does it anger you that Abraham Hamilton III's daughter is persuaded that people can't be good without Jesus?

"However, seeing as how kindergartners through sixth graders are being used as pawns to push an agenda now, why wouldn't I think that those teenagers have been taught to believe what they believe since their formative years?"

Because obviously, teenagers are incapable of forming their own opinions on things; oh no. Generation Z is not an independent generation at all.

"Those beliefs tend to stay with them throughout adolescence and into their teenage years. We could call them "their beliefs" now which they may hold to dearly at that this age. "

Like I said, teenagers are not independent or self-reliant at all. They are all idiots who can't think for themselves. The ones who are radically Christian or conservative, however, DO think for themselves.

"The media that showcase those Parkland students every day know that what those students say is what the students believe and as long as it fits the narrative that the media wants the media will showcase them."

Because people with survivor's guilt have NO RIGHT to share their story! Any one with survivor's guilt is evil, and their speech should be censored, otherwise the media (oh the vicious leftist media!) is pushing an agenda!!!

"Does it anger you that Abraham Hamilton III's daughter is persuaded that people can't be good without Jesus?"

That is a red herring meant to change the subject. Try to stay on topic, I know it is hard, but pretty please try...

"Because obviously, teenagers are incapable of forming their own opinions on things; oh no. Generation Z is not an independent generation at all."

I don't know if this is an appeal to emotion or appeal to pity. But what I do know is that it assumes without proving your argument's conclusion: that the Parkland teenagers in the news have formed their own opinions on these topics. What it doesn't do is answer my question, "since adults are currently using kindergartners to push gun control, why wouldn't I think the Parkland teenagers have already been taught those views their entire lives?" What it does do is falsely claim that I am generalizing all teenagers as not able to form their own opinions. What I am doing is showing evidence that these opinions can be indoctrinated into children their entire lives, and that adults do use young people to push their agendas.

"Like I said, teenagers are not independent or self-reliant at all. They are all idiots who can't think for themselves."

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument by repetition) and it too assumes your argument's conclusion: the Parkland teens have formed their own opinions by themselves. It also attributes to me a claim I never made.

"The ones who are radically Christian or conservative, however, DO think for themselves."

THIS ONE TAKES THE CAKE. Here you attribute to me an argument which I never made and never would make. Because I know that many (not all, just like not all liberal) teenagers who claim to be "conservative Christians" or just conservative do not think for themselves. (Like you said, "the majority of Christians.") They too have been conditioned and indoctrinated to believe the way they believe.

This one sentence also shows the absurdity of your line of reasoning and argumentation: you and left leaning people CAN assume that left leaning teenagers are automatically independent thinkers and have formed their own leftist opinions BUT a Christian with conservative principles CANNOT assume that a Christian teenager with conservative principles is an independent thinker who has formed their own conservative opinions!

Your last retort falsely attributes to me a vicious argument and it appeals to emotion and pity.

I may have used my sarcasm in quite a cruel manner for most of my argumentation here, which is what I meant to do... and I see it worked really well; too well. I'll answer your questions seriously, this time, but under one condition: do not use the phrase "leftist media" in your answers.

"However, seeing as how kindergartners through sixth graders are being used as pawns to push an agenda now, why wouldn't I think that those teenagers have been taught to believe what they believe since their formative years? "

It's likely that through the passing of generations, K-6th graders are learning how to have viable opinions as well, hence Generation Z rising up to be so much better than the millennials prior. I'm pretty sure the reason the news reports on these children walking out of their school against gun violence is simply not because they're trying to push an agenda, but because a nation can't have sudden school walkouts from all over without getting noticed.

Only points 2 and 3 could be explained as sarcasm, hyperbole, or exaggeration because of the word "obviously." (Point 3 goes back to the exaggerated statement about the teenagers.)
The rest is just terrible logic, reasoning, and argumentation.

You are not answering my question. Your "answer" is another red herring. You are turning the question away from the rhetoric spouting Parkland teenagers to the elementary age children I used as my evidence of adults indoctrinating children.

You are assuming that elementary children have "viable opinions" like they understand "the need for gun control' and wanted to walkout of their schools or march in gun control protests. I don't think this image was taken at the "national walkout day" 26zrf2.jpg (click to show)
Even if it was, do you honestly think that elementary children came up with the idea of making posters and signs and walking out of school to wave those sign? Have you spent any significant amount of time with children that age recently? They do not think or behave like that unless prompted and encouraged. (Just like children that age marching in pro-life parades are there because they were brought by adults.)

I have no reason to believe that these teenagers are not "propagating" or "parroting" the talking points they have learned and heard for most of their lives. You don't have a reason for believing that, you just assume it. Just like you and I don't have any reason for believing that a teenager who expresses faith in Jesus Christ came up with those ideas on their own or knows WHY they believe what they say they believe. Same principle.

Why would I type such garb in my argument with the intent of really thinking it? I was merely doing it to test your reaction.

"You are assuming that elementary children have 'viable opinions' like they understand 'the need for gun control' and wanted to walkout of their schools or march in gun control protests. I don't think this image was taken at the 'national walkout day'"

Why wouldn't they? How many elementary schoolchildren need to get shot before we start taking them seriously?

I'm pretty sure the children in that image are around 4th-6th grade anyway, which is usually the grade for children to start producing posters like the ones you showed.

"I have no reason to believe that these teenagers are not "propagating" or "parroting" the talking points they have learned and heard for most of their lives. "

Besides the school shootings that have actually been taking teenagers' lives?

What you are doing is called "cherry picking" or "suppressed evidence" because you are only presenting the "evidence" or part of the statement that favors your conclusion.

"Hence the majority of conservative Christians," was on topic and if you cared to read my entire response you will see that I acknowledged it.

The topic was children being indoctrinated, asking me about my opinion
"Does it anger you..."
is an irrelevant issue to divert attention away from the topic onto my opinion.

Thanks for playing, here is your consolation prize: 27edz5.jpg (click to show)

I love it when one rings the doorbell and no one answers.. ;P

Viewed and upvoted. Another textbook example of sarcasm.

Now you're speaking my language! :-p

Thanks! :D

Sadly, humans are inherently bad, so we usually don't like to follow Jesus.