Good or bad? sinner or saint? fun or boring?

How do you classify people?

Oscar Wilde said that people are not good or bad, they are either tedious or charming. But is it there a correct way to put people into some categorical?Is it right just to put a tag, or is it more a matter of social studying that of labeling people? Well, one thing is true, when we compare others, we certainly do tend to use adjectives.

And just to start with, I'm not him. And disregarding the fact that it is obvious due to the fact that our particles have a similar, yet different arrangement, as well as our cells; they, we are not the same. It is in fact a useful remark because, we do share some gens, so one could say that the whole appearance and genes wouldn't get on the way, but they do.

I have always believed that a person should never be judged by things they can't change, but for things they have chosen. Their actions, their ideology and their values, those are the things a person should be judged by. So, in judgment we are very, extremely different, while I appreciate tolerance and cultural diversity, he's more appealed by social selection and triumph of the the strongest. And to be honest I couldn't say either one is wrong, because at the end the ideologies seem very different but they all have a root in the same thought, social existence.

I could also say that he is active, he's a hunter in the most primal yet seductive of ways, and with a tad of experience he becomes a pro. In the other hand I am passive, observant in the most tedious and creepy of ways, and when out of my element I drown pretty easily. So you could say he is more adaptive, but then again the observing part is just a form of adaptation, so we're not that different, we follow the same light across the tunnel, we just take different sides of the rail.

In morals, I am peaceful, in the whole meaning, for I create no disruption, or anything at all. I treat everyone the same way (all bad, yet the same way), and have a strong feeling for justice. And he is much more aggressive in all ways, has no respect for other's idiosyncrasies and sees people in general as tools, elaborated and complex tools to unlock the gates of his goals. For the nature of my moral, I see his values as wrong and potentially excusable, but as I have previously stated, moral is subjective, we can't say bad or good. Maybe only tedious and charming, but then who is which?

I see many differences, but at the end they are all intangible and unimportant. And thing is that I couldn't be able to say he is right or wrong, or that I am better than he is in any way that is not practically proved. I couldn't say he is tedious or charming, or that I am. And there is where lies the difference, I won't be able to judge him entirely, ever, do to my moral, but he can with his, he does with his; and the fact that I state this, makes the whole difference, the fact that I analyze the pieces that due us apart, the fact that we think of people so differently that he can actually believe he is better than all of them given his reduced judgments makes us a different person, more than any other thing. And that is where lies the difference.

So I don't care, go ahead and say I'm not adaptable, say I don't belong, but I have one thing that nothing can take away from me. I am not him


[2am.whiskey.prep party.a handful of young subjects.an amateur psychiatrist.]
By I'm the penguin