[chaostheory]

Your opinion seems to echo the author's so it was an obvious question, though I only expected to hear yours

> Maybe he wouldn't have had to be sold as an indentured servant,

Again, that wasn't his choice. There was no choice for Jackie Chan. That was his parents' choice. The only choice Jackie had is to either to focus on attaining his definition of success, while acknowledging the past; or to let the obsession of the past overtake his life and wallow in self pity. Where we disagree is that I feel the former choice is the healthier one.

> Again, I can't answer for the author, but I can think of a few things Chan could do: help prevent a similar hard childhood for current kids. Speak out. Join an advocacy group.

Yes like many other celebrities, Jackie Chan has charitable efforts for children and other causes. I don't disagree, but neither you nor the author mentioned this until now which made your argument seem pointless.

> Maybe raise awareness of how dire the situation for many families was in colonial Hong Kong.

That was probably the point of recounting his hardship while at the peking opera. Colonial HK and the peking opera, at least in its previous form, also do not exist anymore.

> but arguing there's only despair and hopeless seems disingenuous to me

That wasn't my argument. My point was that it seemed that you and the author feel that Jackie Chan did not obsess enough about the sadness and pain of his early life. I felt what both you and the author were advocating was senseless.

[the_af]

> Your opinion seems to echo the author's so it was an obvious question

But it doesn't. I wrote a single paragraph, mostly describing what I thought was a key aspect of the article, and calling it "interesting". The author wrote a whole article addressing multiple things. I'm not even the submitter of the article! Your assumptions are unwarranted.

> neither you nor the author mentioned this until now which made your argument seem pointless.

But I didn't make any argument. Please re-read what I wrote and tell me what my "argument" was that seemed "pointless" to you.

It seems you are arguing with me because you can't with the author? I just wrote something about the actual content of the article, when other replies were "I loved Jackie Chan in Rush Hour!", which is unrelated to the topic.

[chaostheory]

Maybe I am arguing with you because I can't do the same with the author. Does your comment not reiterate the article's core ideas in a nice little package? The size of the content is irrelevant when it resonates with the larger work. Is it not natural to ask "What's the point?" when none was seemingly provided?

[the_af]

> Does your comment not reiterate the article's core ideas in a nice little package?

No?

> Maybe I am arguing with you because I can't do the same with the author.

Indeed.

Because my post was very short, let me quote it here in its entirety, and please tell me how it "resonates" with the article and what point you think I -- along with the author, apparently -- am making, or should be making:

> "Interesting how difficult and rough Jackie Chan's childhood was. He certainly succeeded, but at what cost? This article reviews how Chan downplays the hardships he was forced to endure (e.g. being essentially sold by his parents as an indentured servant when he was seven years old, complete with beatings and dismal living conditions) and instead chooses to focus on the end result, his success as an adult."

As you can see, I'm not trying to make any point. I've no idea what the article's author thinks, but you may have surmised I think the cost was too much. You'd be correct: I wouldn't wish this childhood on any kid, from Hong Kong or elsewhere. I'm glad Jackie Chan managed to survive and become successful, because I like him and his movies.

[chaostheory]

Let me dissect it.

> Interesting how difficult and rough Jackie Chan's childhood was. He certainly succeeded, but at what cost?

You echo the article's conclusion. You agree with its main idea.

> This article reviews how Chan downplays the hardships he was forced to endure (e.g. being essentially sold by his parents as an indentured servant when he was seven years old, complete with beatings and dismal living conditions) and instead chooses to focus on the end result, his success as an adult."

You now summarize the article. Can you not see how someone would feel that you agreed with the author?

> I've no idea what the article's author thinks, but you may have surmised I think the cost was too much

The author makes it very clear how he feels. It's pretty disingenuous for anyone who's read the article to say that.

Do you disagree with the article?

[the_af]

> You echo the article's conclusion. You agree with its main idea.

No. The article is very long, draws many conclusions and ponders many aspects of Jackie's life and autobiography, and I only mentioned one aspect (a question, not a conclusion by the way). I'm completely silent on other issues raised by the article, such as Jackie Chan's opinions of freedom, his injuries, his relationship with mainland China, etc.

So no, I wouldn't say I "agree with its main idea". I do find the article interesting, which is what I said: no more, no less.

> You now summarize the article.

Yes.

> Can you not see how someone would feel that you agreed with the author?

No.

> The author makes it very clear how he feels.

Then why do you ask me?

> Do you disagree with the article?

I find parts of it I agree with, others uninteresting, others I disagree with. I already explained what I find interesting in my initial post ("how difficult and rough Jackie Chan's childhood was") and in my previous post I mentioned I wouldn't wish such a childhood on any kid.

[chaostheory]

> Then why do you ask me?

Because from my perspective it seems like you had an opinion and then you backed away once I challenged it. You dance around it enough to pretend that the author didn't make a clear opinion.

> I only mentioned one aspect (a question, not a conclusion by the way)

It sounded rhetorical. Like with other religious wars, we can agree to disagree. From my perspective, I still feel that your original point was that you felt Jackie Chan was wrong "to focus on the end result, his success as an adult" instead of contemplating more on his hard childhood. I'm not sure why you'd back away from that opinion. While I disagree with it, it isn't exactly controversial either.