I disagree, although humans may naturally act negatively towards each other, we still have a feeling when something is wrong. The only way this could be possible is if an external influence was teaching you what good and bad were.

People who do bad things have their own good reason, just going about it in the wrong way or wrong morality. For example, take Hitler. He wanted to make Germany stronger than what it was to show countries it is still awesome. However, he decided to do it by the way of blaming the recession on the Jews. He may be going to hell because of this, but he was trying to do something good for his country.

I agree with the origional statement. Many peop

I believe that the road to hell is paved with good intentions because you may be doing something good for yourself, but then harming others or putting others at a disadvantage at the same time.

NO <-----I agree

I defiantly agree.

Obviously, there are other internal and external factors that affects what will happen to you. The actions you take, the things you say, and the thoughts you have all combine and mold together to create your destiny. You can make your destiny what ever you want it to be if you put forth the effort and take time in achieving that.

I believe that your destiny is always in your control, and although there are obstacles that you may face, in the end it is up to you.

The meaning of life is its journey to find yourself. Destiny is never fixable. It is always fluent and in motion and changes whenever you make a decision that could affect

I think that you do make your own destiny but there are things along the way in your journey that steer you.

I agree that things along your journey can pop up as an obstacle but they don't steer you. How you handle the obstacle is what steers your journey.

You don't have control over what happens in your life, but you can control how you react and the is really what matters in the gg

I believe you create your own destiny, and in Macbeth, I think macbeth will learn that. We can infer he

THis is evident when Macbeth leaves his fate to be thane of Cawdor and he doesn't become the Thane of Cawdor. Now he is plotting to kill the new Thane of Cawdor so he can become the Thane. (That's when he learned he has to create his destiny.

Additionally, people who become obsessed with power will stop at nothing to get it.

Humans are selfish by nature. The more power someone has relative to others, the more likely they are to take advantage of it to benefit themselves.

Time and time again it has been proven that power will corrupt a person... The Stanford prison experiment, communist societies in which one group was given ultimate power, Maria Abramovic's doll performance piece, etc.

WHen people have to much power thier minds are dwo

When people get too much power they become a little obsessed. They can become used to having anything they want whenever they want

As seen in the past power will corrupt all it elapses. It may take more for others such as those more tollerant like Lincoln but the reason we nether saw that was because

Power does corrupt because the leader is put into a position where he can do, pretty much, whatever he wants. In this position there is no one holding them back, so they become "hungry" to do what helps them.

Macbeth's desire for power will fuel his ambition and corrupt the soul to evil. Thus can be shown by his thought of killing the jing in Act 1 scene 5.

Macbeth as he gains more power becomes more corrupt because when he gains power he feels it is okay to kill the king when before he would have dismissed the thought.

Lady Macbeth is also effected by Macbeth's power and then she too becomes crazy and power hungry

Macbeth is becoming obsessed with gaining titles and has a strong ambition to become king even though Malcom is supposed to be king. eventually, the fact that everyone wants the power could make people angry, cause conflict, and allow the power to corrupt

Ambition is supposed to mean "altirior motive"

This saying means that love happens for the sake of love itself.

I think love has to have ambition because if you don't have a reason or strive to love someone, then I don't believe you truly love them. You have to have reasons as to why you care about somebody.

Love has ambition. You want to be happy in a realtionship so that can be your ambition. your ambition can also be to make your partner happy.

Love doesn't have too much ambition. If you fall

Monarchy resembles a kind of stability because leadership is simply passed down from a family. Anarchy is very far away from stability.

If the power of anarchy is powerful enough, I definitely do believe so. Of course it wouldn't make anyone happy, and it wouldn't be a happy enviroment.

How a king is overthrown is through anarchy and if it can used as a tool by a smart king it can be won

Even the best kings can be felled by rebels. So, while monarchy is a very stable form of government, it indeed can be brought down with enough chaos and disorder.

Technically, what may come out of anarchy is tyranny, or someone ruling by means unmoralistic means. This tyranny may or may not become a monarchy, meaning it is passed down in family. It largely depends on what the population believes.

I disagree because just as an example a lot of the people complain about the presidents and the government in the US (really for no reason.) They are not loyal to the leadership, but are also patriotic towards america. They are patriotic and love the country, but are not loyal to the government of it.

Patriotism's definition is a love/respect for one's country. This means that to be a true "Patriot", you must have full loyalty to your country.

It's not true because a lot of people discrminate the government even though they are loyal to our country but it is not loyalty if you dscriminate the government

Patriotism is the love for one's country or nation. A very patriotic person will do bold and even sometimes daring things to fight for their country. To be patriotic, you defend your country. This doesn't nessicarily mean that you defend the authorities within this society. 

In Macbeth, Macbeth does exactly this. He does what he thinks would be better for his nation and he tries to become king. To accomplish this, Macbeth sets out to kill the king, so absolutely no loyalty to the authority of that society.

I think by

From what we have read so far, it seems that Macbeth is going to end up doing some rash, violent things to become King, and at this point we can already see some guilt in him, telling us that he may end up with some regrets, along with some evil actions, which being king does not justify

I agree

same

I believe this too. However, she has a point, she is just going about it in a very scary way. If she could channel all these good

I wouldn't say

She's

I agree as well. She wanted the most cruel thing to happen in

She says she'd kill her own child

Not crazy. Pycoctic, perhaps. And larger than life, but not crazy

I wouldn't exactly say crazy, she just is really angry