The thing about the word "bad" is that it differs between people. A good example is how people who hunt for food and sport don't see any problem with it. But people like vegans angrily protest against these actions saying it's wrong and against their morals. A lot of people agree that killing another human is "bad" yet armies and militaries have killed millions of people ever since armies and militaries have been in action. Human morals are so confusing and sometimes, too many exceptions

This reminds me of something discussed in our socratic circle: we discussed how although Jack had said that the boys were English and they were civil, the use of "flies" in the book title lowers them to the level of flies. 

What does it mean to be "human?" Animals have their own sense of right and wrong too. Maybe it's because humans have "expanded" on their morals and even judging one's actions and labeling it wrong or right, good or bad. But who knows? It's said that wild dogs in packs isolate other dogs if they do something "wrong" in their eyes. Or how ants will separate themselves from their colony if their sick. 

This is a good way to give examples because we recognize and know who these people are and look up to them. (Well some of them) It's easier for us "youngsters" to relate to this when its all "21st-century-ized" :D 

"Dared" is a very good word used by Obama in this sentence. He's right: we Americans are hopeful because Osama is gone. But he still has his followers. They want revenge like the U.S wanted revenge for 9/11. We can't become vain and think that America is completely safe and terrorist proof. We had something of our "property" destroyed, and we recently killed al Qaeda's "property". (Osama). Locke's theory was that no person's property is to be harmed by another's.

I thought this was very interesting; according to this, siblings after the first born are more creative and innovative