Rett Mikhal
Captain
I think genuine heroism involves a certain amount of risk. It's easy to do good at no risk to yourself. Why is that heroic? I'm not saying it's bad, just that it doesn't necessarily deserve the "heroic" label. Philanthropy is an enormous good in this world, but I would hesitate to call such benefactors "heroes."
"Hero" should be rather narrowly defined, otherwise it doesn't really mean anything--you could find a way to call anyone a "hero."
Exactly the point I was making. If you were a rocket scientist with ten Ph.Ds who designed the Saturn V rocket, then I launched a model rocket in my back yard and called myself a rocket scientist, how would you feel?
The term "rocket scientist" has a more firm definition. "Hero" does not. That said, when one has money to adopt a child and does so, yet doesn't sacrifice one's wealth in the process, is that person still a hero to that child for being adopted? You better believe it. Great sacrifice is not required for someone to be a hero. Again, that is what makes "hero" a diaphanous term, because it can be applied in so many ways.
But the point of my statement was effort. The scientist worked hard to get to where he is and earn his title. A hero, generally, has to do the same. Though there is no one way to do it, it always involves effort and sincerity. It may not take effort to donate money, but it does usually take sincerity, unless you do it just to please your publicity manager.
I don't see Babynoise making effort or having sincerity.