Originally posted by: tapori
All I see is a few ridiculous strawman arguments here.π
Did you even watch the video? It questions if he had contacts; and contrasts him with Irrfan who started around the same time but needed 15 years to get a leading role! Again, it's only talking about the break, and not the ensuing stardom all the while acknowledging the degrees nepotism works vary.
π Projecting much?
Strawman argument = making up a nonexistent issue in order to derail debate.
That whole contrasting SRK and Irfan is in itself strawman argument to make it seem SRK got there because of nepotism.
It AND your suggestion of the same are the ludicrous claims here. You didn't like the fallacies of your argument being pointed out, so you try to pooh-pooh them. π
My statements stand:
If as JS suggested, a connection with Indira Gandhi was got SRK started, then he'd have done much better than the movies he starred in the beginning of his career. He got where he is because of relentless hustling, hard work, talent, and a bit of luck.
Irfan is a wonderful actor. But he didn't hustle as much as SRK. That's a part of every job. You can't wait for the world to come and invite you in.
Edited by HearMeRoar - 3 years ago
comment:
p_commentcount