I was thinking, and really, there is no such thing as a hero. In the world, there are the good, the bad, and the neutral. You really can't be a hero if you're always making life bad for someone else. For example: many think of police as heroes, but if a cop arrests a member of a street gang, he would be a hero to some, but a villain to others, like the gang the person belonged to. What do you think?

First of all, there are no sides. Sides are often exaggerated in media and people's personality is often exaggerated too. There is no good, bad, or neutral. Everyone's who they are.

Now...to this topic. There is a hero. Haven't you ever thought of non-violent scenarios? Take for example, firemen. They stop fires and get peopel out of burning buildings. In this case, the only results is a saved person.

Children have heroes, and even we probably still have heroes.
And your thing about the cop and the gang member, that was just stupid. If they are hurting another, or killing another, then stopping them from doing so is right. There are ways of doing it wrong, but if it was a clean arrest, then the cop is the hero.
But as Insane said, there are heroes. If osmething is about to fall on someone, and someone else saves them, then they are a hero.
The people who saved the people in the white house from death by retaking control of the plane controlled by the terrorist and crashing it into the ground, they are heroes for sacrificing themselves for a greater cause.
And the people who have fought in wars to keep a nation free, they are heroes. Never say there aren't.

In the natural world, there is no good or evil.

Humans created the concept of good or evil based on themselves or a deity of some sort. But if humans didn't exist, there is no good or evil.

Therefore, naturally there is not good or evil in the real world. Unless you specify some reference. Like Hilter is evil, and therefore you have introduced the human factor, which creates a good and an evil.

And in a similar fashion, heroes and villians exist. But based on the reference that each individual assigns.

So yes, there are heroes. But, only if a person defines a reference point on what is a hero or villian.

Remenber though there were people who believed him to be good. With the human factor, good and evil are just points of view and nothing more.

Going back to the 9/11 thing you have to yet again remember that those people viewed the bombers as heroes and us as the villians.

Good and evil are points of view, and heroes and villians are just titles. The way the world works with the human factor of points of view make it so that there's no true meaning of the word "Hero" and a word without a set meaning is nothing but a title made to increase the size of ones' ego. However people take comfort in the idea that there are "heroes" out there protecting them so if someone wants to believe that heroes are real, why should we tell them otherwise?

Bottom line. Hero has no true meaning when the human factor comes into play, it's more of a comforting thought than an actual title.

A hero doesn't need to be a fact.
Thats like saying math doesn't exist, or science doesn't exist. Or history. Or Writing. Or language.
All of which wouldn't without humans.

I have nothing against them. Actually, I respect them. But though the word "hero" wouldn't fit, the concept still does. Really, I believe that heroes can only exist in a conflict between men. If It was man versus nature or some other power that we have little or no power over, to me, the word doesn't fit.

Allow me to refute that.

First of all. Math and Science.
The words "Math" and "Science" don't naturally exist because it is a concept of humans.
But, the concepts of math and science exist. Unless Nature is truly random, which it doesn't seem to be.

The same with History. The concept of history exists because Nature has it's own way of keeping track of history.

Writing, I don't really know. Nature hasn't made anything that writes besides humans so I think this is pretty nonexistant in the natural reality.

But the concept of language, communication, is obviously in existance. It continues on through time even without the human factor. (Animals communicate.)

The concepts yes, but not the word to put it as it. We knoe what it is without thinking. Theres something that applies to it that we don't know about. We connect the word to the idea by choice.
Like a pear. We know what a pear is without truly knowing what a pear is.

Anyway, back onto the idea of heroes. The word would fit, im sure theres a situation where it would. Like stopping a forest fire, or saving an animal from a bear. No, the word hero wouldn't be applied to us by the animals, but the concept of protector, or savior, would.

Except, that is only from one human perspective.

Let's take into account the airplane jacking after 9/11 where the passengers risked their lives to protect this country.

From the perspective of US citizens and their families, they are heroes right?
But, what about the people who are in the Middle East who hate the US and initiated the attack in the first place? To them, those citizens were villians.

But in the grand scheme, no matter if from human perspective or animal, they were killing, and to anything, anything that kills is evil. Except to the killers, who think for some reason they can kill.

So obviously, all predators are evil.

Hm....
I didn't know that bears were evil, sharks were evil, animal plankton were evil, virii were evil, locust were evil, grasshopers were evil, et al.

Ever heard of locusts eating an entire field and ruining a farmer's life? If that's not evil, I don't know what is.

When I said killers, I meant human killers. Like, humans killing humans for fun?
Evil. There is no need.
You could consider a hunter evil, but then again, religious people would not. And dont bring that up, I dont want a religion argument.
Locusts are not evil, they are not killing crops for fun, but out of need.

Wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_%28TV_series%29

The concept of a "Hero" is entirely subjective. Personal opinions will always defer, and no one can win an argument based solely on feelings. There's no way to "prove" your concept of a hero in anyone's eyes, no matter how you see it; it's entirely up to them to decide what they believe one to be.

Thus, to some, there are no heroes, and to others, there are heroes. The key is that this truth is divided by opinion; an opinion that cannot be refuted in any way.

In other words, this topic is meaningless. None of you are right, and none of you are wrong (other than Chibi Goku).

The concept of a hero is a divide by 0 error.

Honestly, what was that supposed to prove? Just 'cuz it says "Heros" in the title, it doesn't mean that they are heroes. I watched the show when it was still on, and one of the so called heros killed a whole crap load of people. Heros don't kill; merely maim.

I agree,though I dream about becoming Megaman as a adult and my wifes Roll while my son is Bass and we killed NEBULA GRAY

^What the... Hell?
Sorry, Cole, but... That's definately spam.
>.> That had nothing to do with the topic...



Alright, I'm gonna go ahead and say yes, there are heroes, not 'heroes', but the concept of being a hero, if you see someone who saved your ass, what do you think of them? More strongly for them than before, no doubt.

There are definetly heroes in the world, however, not all heroes are so clear cut. I like the fireman example, because that individual is not jepordizing anothers the lives except the awsomeness that is fire, however, for someone such as say.. General Sherman of the civil war. Sherman decided that the best way to end the war and stop the killing is simply to attack the South with the most crippling and most destructive attack they can muster. Sherman single handlely brought the South to its knees. To the North, Sherman was a Hero, to the South, he was a monster. Both sides were only fighting for their beliefs. The South was fighting for the Confederate law, not just specifically enslaving blackmen. The North was fighting for the Union, not specifically to free slaves. Neither of the side wanted to eradicate the others. It is true that if the north did not win, there might have been slaves up until this day, however, aside from that, both sides were only fighting for what they believed was right. Neither side was "wrong" so to speak so the term Hero I believe should be used for more clear cut individuals OR people who inspire you which is a whole other topic.